# Explain fascination with Furtwängler



## Becca

I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm * however interest has gotten the better of me so...

I have long been wondering what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so much better than most of what has come since. Yes I can understand that he was one of the top conductors of the first half of the 20th century but that doesn't explain why he is seen as THE interpretive icon. Perhaps some can offer insights into the matter.

I should note that while I do have some favourite conductors, there are things that I both like and dislike about all of them so I don't see any as rising above the others.

* In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...


----------



## Becca

...and yes, I have listened to some of what is available, both recorded and video.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Why should any topic on this forum be a firestorm? We’re just expressing opinions about a fun subject.

Furtwängler was the greatest genius I have heard on record at pacing a piece just right so that the intended effect reaches me the listener. He knew just where to speed up or slow down. But even more importantly, he intuitively felt the music in the moment so that nothing ever sounded stale. I also believe from his recordings that he had a superior understanding of the architecture of German repertoire and the harmonic language, so that you are not just hearing pretty sounds, precise attacks, etc. but instead you are hearing story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. For this reason it is impossible merely to sample a Furtwängler recording. You need to take in the whole thing, which is the point of symphonic structure and composition.

Finally, he had a gift for unleashing orchestras to do amazing things together, whether it was producing an overwhelming crescendo or playing with an intensely felt, soft legato line. And the music was never stale in his hands. It was always breathing, always going somewhere.

I could probably say more, but that’s enough for now.


----------



## Fabulin

To put it cerebrally, the choice of tempi and dynamics is a delicate art, and his decisions were excellent. He was an interpretative "risk-taker", but one whose pay-offs were consistent enough to result in unforgettable musical experiences for many who come across his recordings.
To put it emotionally, https://youtu.be/IgwRtknwI8k?t=3819

I know many recordings of the 9th, old and new, but no memory of alternatives remains when I hear that presto.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Also, “fascination” makes it sound like there is some reason beyond the music itself for responding to him. For most of us “Furtwängler fans” it is a simple matter of preferring his recordings to most others.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Fabulin said:


> To put it cerebrally, the choice of tempi and dynamics is a delicate art, and his decisions were excellent. He was an interpretative "risk-taker", but one whose pay-offs were consistent enough to result in unforgettable musical experiences for many who come across his recordings.
> To put it emotionally, https://youtu.be/IgwRtknwI8k?t=3819
> 
> I know many recordings of the 9th, old and new, but no memory of alternatives remains when I hear _that _presto.


There are some who accuse Furtwängler of "messing" with the tempo by not being strictly metronomical. The point is that it's an art, as you say. There are some conductors who try to be flexible with tempo and it simply doesn't work. It either works naturally and organically with the music or it doesn't.


----------



## SONNET CLV

As I type this I am looking at the big box set that sits on a top shelf of one of the CD shelves I built. It's a great collection …









A pretty nice shelf, too.

Though the recorded sound of this particular conductor's offerings is seldom ideal (if ever!), the interpretations rise above. And so often, on a well-known work, something rises out of the interpretation that speaks (in that musical way that remains beyond words) of a profound beauty and/or meaning that no other conductor has ever realized in my ears.

A case in point is a particular Beethoven Ninth recorded by the man (and he recorded several). I thought I had heard the Beethoven before, a hundred times. Then I heard this one, and Wow! Something was just different that made the piece addictively compelling in a way that this addictively compelling work of art had never before been to me. That's how it is with this conductor.

And … he has a great name, too: Furtwangler. (Maybe it's the umlaut.)

-- By the way, if you noticed I didn't reveal which recording of the Ninth I have in mind, you didn't miss anything. Perhaps you should explore Furtwängler for yourself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The ideal starting places for Furtwängler are:

1) 1954 Lucerne Beethoven 9th on Audite

2) Schumann 4th on DG

3) three Music & Arts box sets:

- wartime Beethoven symphonies 4-7 & 9
- Brahms symphonies 1-4
- Bruckner symphonies 4-9

4) EMI Tristan und Isolde


----------



## mbhaub

In Furtwangler there's this sense of ebb and flow, a natural rubato that just sounds so right. I am not a WF fanatic - the sound is too dated for my taste, but I have enough to make me sorry I didn't ever hear him live. That EMI Tristan is just incredible. No one today conducts Brahms the way he did. As a composer...he was terrible.


----------



## Fabulin

https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au/features/pope-admits-to-predilection-for-furtwangler/


----------



## Triplets

It’s an interesting question that Becca raised. My first exposure to both Furtwangler and Beethoven’s Eroica was on a budget lap that my sister bought in 1972. It was a live Concert from Vienna towards the end of the War and no other recording has ever gripped me so. I became an instant convert. His Bruckner Eigth and his Tristan have also seemed sui genereis as well, but lately I seemed to have lost some of the reverence that formerly had. More modern versions of most of his repertoire have supplanted many of his recordings for me


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm with Becca. I don't feel there is anything I heard from Furtwangler that I didn't have a stronger preference for another performance. When they both did the same work, I always preferred Solti. Is there a connection between the 2? I just read Furtwangler was impressed by Solti.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

I’m the opposite. I see Solti as superficial sounding next to Furtwängler. But I find him that way compared to most conductors. His Mahler blazes and impresses technically, but it doesn’t move me like Barbirolli, Horenstein, Klemperer, Walter, or Bernstein.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Furtwängler is my favorite conductor because his name is fun to say (FOORT-vengler). All jesting aside, I connect with pretty much everything he did because his focus was on interpreting the score to fit his highly personal visions and the idea of music as a spiritual, dynamic force for good in the world. He was often criticized for this "naive" view (which provided the rationale for him staying in Germany during the war - he wanted to "evangelize" for German music, hoping it would salve the evil of the regime) but it's a view that I wholeheartedly share. You do have to put aside all preconceptions about how the music should go when you listen to him - if you require perfect playing, good sound quality, all markings in the score observed, metronomic tempi - then he's not for you. But for those who want to hear a deeply distinctive passion and relevance behind every note of a score, then Furtwängler has never been topped. I had never liked Beethoven's 9th all that much until I heard his '52 Bayreuth recording. I sat spellbound on the verge of tears. It sounded as if the musicians were engaging in a sacred, spontaneous communal experience. Finally I understood the incredible power and significance of Beethoven's vision and its ability to inspire. This long but worthwhile article does a great job at attempting to tackle what exactly his art was all about and why it is so significant: http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html


----------



## Zhdanov

Becca said:


> what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so much better than most of what has come since.


maybe they have been told do so?

i for one have certain reservations about his approach...

it appears as if he, at times, would rather see a music piece as a landscape than emotional outbursts.

and here is an example of that, _Tristan und Isolde_ -


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think it’s also important to point out Furtwängler’s aversion to recordings and the idea of perfection. He was the complete opposite of Karajan in this regard. Furtwängler wanted every performance to be its own creature and a product of the instance it occurred. He did not aspire to a perfect account to be captured for all time. He didn’t believe it.

So if you are the type of listener who has an idea of perfection in your mind and a litmus test for what does and does not work, you probably won’t like Furtwängler. If you are open to the impact of a performance representing the thoughts of an artist only at one instant in time, without regard to stringent parameters of perfection, you might appreciate Furtwängler.

I never rate Furtwängler (or others) by standards of perfection. I rate them by their impact. That was Furtwängler’s goal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Zhdanov said:


> maybe they have been told do so?
> 
> i for one have certain reservations about his approach...


You are entitled to your opinion, but to state that those of us who do appreciate Furtwängler lack individual brains and merely are being told to like him is both insulting and closed-minded.


----------



## Zhdanov

Brahmsianhorn said:


> to state that those of us who do appreciate Furtwängler lack individual brains and merely are being told to like him is both insulting and closed-minded.


but i only said 'maybe'.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I don’t listen to Furtwängler on a regular basis, but I’ll say this: There’s no way I will think anyone knows much about classical music if they are not very familiar with Furtwängler’s work. I am sure that I have listened to every reasonably available recording this conductor ever made, and I go back now and then and listen to several of his signal achievements in order to make sure I’m in proper calibration with respect to the performance of the core German symphonic repertoire.

Consider the major interpreters of the standard German repertoire from the second half of the 20th Century and right up to the present. Let’s say HvK, Klemperer, Walter, Koussevitzky, Monteux, Munch, Reiner, Szell, Ormandy, Dorati, Bernstein, Solti, Blomstedt, Haitink, Abbado, Jochum, Jansons, Giulini, and forgive me for leaving out lots of others and for my tilt toward American orchestras. The point is that they were/are all highly aware of Furtwängler down to the smallest detail. Every artistic decision they made/make is directly or indirectly influenced by what Furtwängler did. Or if “influenced” is an over-reach, let’s say “informed.” As others have commented, Furtwängler absolutely knew what he was doing and managed to put together and lead more definitive performances of the standard German repertoire than any other conductor.

There are problems with Furtwängler. My dad hated him, and that seems to be typical of people of my dad’s generation who fought in WW2 against the Nazis. “Ich höre dem Reiner tausandmal zu vor ich dem Furtwängler ein einziges Mal zuhöre, dem Nazi Miststück. Und Du, Franz, musst mal darüber nachdenken.” It’s sort of sad and pathetic, then, that my main problem with Furtwängler is the sound quality of his recordings. Nuanced views are a privilege gained by separation in time from traumatic events.

Most of my Furtwängler recordings are on old cassette tapes that my close friend made for me in the early 1990s. He was a Furtwängler evangelist. Many of the original recordings were literally made behind enemy lines, so the further degradation caused by the dubbing is of little consequence. I cherish those tapes for the memory of my friend and for the incalculable benefit they have brought to me. How would I have my bearings in the sea of symphonic music if it weren’t for Furtwängler?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think Furtwängler can at most be accused of being naively used and manipulated by the Nazis, but he definitely did not in any way willingly help or support them. He honestly believed he was doing more to fight the Nazis by staying in Germany and standing up to them to the extent possible. What he got away with was inconceivable, including criticizing Hitler for his racial policies to his face. It was only because the Nazis needed Furtwängler so badly that he could get away with it. One of the things they did was use Karajan, a compliant Nazi, as a way to make Furtwängler jealous and try to curb his behavior. This is part of the root of not only the animosity between the two men but their later admirers as well.


----------



## Fabulin

Oh no, not those stupid Nazi accusations again...

And as for a post a while back, I thought Furtwängler was the best there was before discussing classical music with anyone else, not to mention on internet forums.


----------



## Heck148

Simplicissimus said:


> Consider the major interpreters of the standard German repertoire from the second half of the 20th Century and right up to the present. Let's say HvK, Klemperer, Walter, Koussevitzky, Monteux, Munch, Reiner, Szell, Ormandy, Dorati, Bernstein, Solti, Blomstedt, Haitink, Abbado, Jochum, Jansons, Giulini, and forgive me for leaving out lots of others and for my tilt toward American orchestras. The point is that they were/are all highly aware of Furtwängler down to the smallest detail. Every artistic decision they made/make is directly or indirectly influenced by what Furtwängler did. Or if "influenced" is an over-reach, let's say "informed."


You left out Toscanini and Weingartner, *major* omissions - the two "founders" of the literalist movement...it is not possible to discuss the standard Germanic repertoire without including these conductors, esp Toscanini...whose style ultimately prevailed over the "Romantic" style of Furtwangler, Mengelberg, etc...of course, their "disciples" were major players as well - Reiner, Szell, Monteux, etc....
I don't think Toscanini really cared much what Furtwangler did [other than to criticize it].
To try to maintain that every post-Furtwangler conductor studied his readings down to the smallest detail is just an unsupportable premise...

Just so you understand - when I originally started to become involved seriously with classical/concert music [high school] - I was a huge Furtwangler fan, really got into it...it seemed so deep, so profound, so "significant"....but, as I studied more, went off to conservatory, and was exposed, became familiar with other styles, other schools of music-making, I began to see that extremely powerful, expressive and dramatic readings could be produced while still maintaining a fidelity to the score, with much better precision accuracy, intensity, flow, etc....



> As others have commented, Furtwängler absolutely knew what he was doing and managed to put together and lead more definitive performances of the standard German repertoire than any other conductor.


Baloney....sorry, that is pure opinion with which I do not concur, in the least.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think it's also important to point out Furtwängler's aversion to recordings and the idea of perfection. He was the complete opposite of Karajan in this regard. Furtwängler wanted every performance to be its own creature and a product of the instance it occurred. He did not aspire to a perfect account to be captured for all time. He didn't believe it.
> 
> So if you are the type of listener who has an idea of perfection in your mind and a litmus test for what does and does not work, you probably won't like Furtwängler. If you are open to the impact of a performance representing the thoughts of an artist only at one instant in time, without regard to stringent parameters of perfection, you might appreciate Furtwängler.
> 
> I never rate Furtwängler (or others) by standards of perfection. I rate them by their impact. That was Furtwängler's goal.


I think the first paragraph is very telling and a good description but I think it is true for everyone (musicians/performers) and how listeners respond to the music. In other words, you are making a point specifically for Furtwangler but we are all responding to recorded music in various ways based on the "moment" it was recorded.


----------



## Fabulin

Heck148 said:


> You left out Toscanini and Weingartner, *major* omissions - the two "founders" of the literalist movement...it is not possible to discuss the standard Germanic repertoire without including these conductors, esp Toscanini...whose style ultimately prevailed over the "Romantic" style of Furtwangler, Mengelberg, etc...of course, their "disciples" were major players as well - Reiner, Szell, Monteux, etc....


In this case what prevails is that which is easier to teach.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Baloney....sorry, that is pure opinion with which I do not concur, in the least.


Well it is an opinion shared by an awful lot of people. Furtwängler has the biggest following of any of those first half of the century conductors, including Toscanini. And merely protesting that it's all bogus ain't going to change that.

An old friend of mine 30 years my senior introduced me to Furtwängler when I was in college. He told me about first hearing Furtwängler when he himself was a college music major. He listened to Beethoven's 5th on a DG LP (from 1947, an excellent rendition). He said, "I got so excited I started jumping up and down in my dorm room! I always knew the way Toscanini conducted Beethoven was wrong!"

Toscanini was extremely skilled but didn't let the music breathe and did not possess a scintilla of the depth or understanding of harmonic narrative of Furtwängler. To say that Furtwängler "seemed" profound is like saying Einstein "seemed" intelligent or that Mozart "seemed" talented. Reputations are made for a reason.

Finally, I can't escape the irony that Furtwängler himself detested conservatories. He believed they stifled individual inspiration and creativity in music, producing instead an assembly line of mere technicians. His concern was indeed prophetic.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Fabulin said:


> In this case what prevails is that which is easier to teach.


It only "prevailed" in the US, partly because technical brilliance was always more coveted over here and party because of Toscanini's influence. There's a reason Bernstein had to go to Vienna to make recordings that actually sound like Beethoven.

Also, Furtwängler made it clear that as you say it is easier to conduct according to the simple, clear conservatory method. But that is the road to mediocrity, not art. It is the efficient, streamlined, production-oriented approach. What Furtwängler aimed for was more than simple clarity, and more often than not he achieved it.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well it is an opinion shared by an awful lot of people. Furtwängler has the biggest following of any of those first half of the century conductors, including Toscanini. And merely protesting that it's all bogus ain't going to change that.
> 
> An old friend of mine 30 years my senior introduced me to Furtwängler when I was in college. He told me about first hearing Furtwängler when he himself was a college music major. He listened to Beethoven's 5th on a DG LP (from 1947, an excellent rendition). He said, "I got so excited I started jumping up and down in my dorm room! I always knew the way Toscanini conducted Beethoven was wrong!"
> 
> Toscanini was extremely skilled but didn't let the music breathe and did not possess a scintilla of the depth or understanding of harmonic narrative of Furtwängler. To say that Furtwängler "seemed" profound is like saying Einstein "seemed" intelligent or that Mozart "seemed" talented. Reputations are made for a reason.
> 
> Finally, I can't escape the irony that Furtwängler himself detested conservatories. He believed they stifled individual inspiration and creativity in music, producing instead an assembly line of mere technicians. His concern was indeed prophetic.


Your statement of course is probably right albeit simplistic because most conductors after followed Toscanini rather than Furtwangler. Hence it is Furtwangler who has become somewhat of a mysterious cult figure. The problem is that your assessment of Toscanini is based on his later recordings when he was an old man and frankly somewhat calcified and passed it. To say that Toscanini did not possess a scintilla of the depth or understanding of harmonic narrative of Furtwängler is simply laughable. Of course he did. He just expressed it in a different way. You are once again making sweeping statements when sweeping statements do not apply


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It only "prevailed" in the US, partly because technical brilliance was always more coveted over here and party because of Toscanini's influence. *There's a reason Bernstein had to go to Vienna to make recordings that actually sound like Beethoven.
> *
> Also, Furtwängler made it clear that as you say it is easier to conduct according to the simple, clear conservatory method. But that is the road to mediocrity, not art. It is the efficient, streamlined, production-oriented approach. What Furtwängler aimed for was more than simple clarity, and more often than not he achieved it.


This is again one of your highly subjective statements which you are trying to make objective. Some of us would say that the earlier Beethoven cycle by Lenny with the New York Philharmonic is more like Beethoven than his lighter one with the Vienna Philharmonic. Certainly the earlier Missy Solemnise is to be preferred


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think Furtwängler can at most be accused of being naively used and manipulated by the Nazis, but he definitely did not in any way willingly help or support them. He honestly believed he was doing more to fight the Nazis by staying in Germany and standing up to them to the extent possible. What he got away with was inconceivable, including criticizing Hitler for his racial policies to his face. It was only because the Nazis needed Furtwängler so badly that he could get away with it. One of the things they did was use Karajan, a compliant Nazi, as a way to make Furtwängler jealous and try to curb his behavior. This is part of the root of not only the animosity between the two men but their later admirers as well.


Whatever the rights and wrongs, Furtwangler enjoyed a good lifestyle under the Nazis. Like other German conductors of the time including Karajan, Knappertsbusch, Bohm, Strauss, etc, he could have got out but chose to stay. Of course it's easy for us to judge when we were not in that position but Furtwangler should not be treated as some sort of misunderstood hero for this time as some have tried to make out.


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> Whatever the rights and wrongs, Furtwangler enjoyed a good lifestyle under the Nazis. Like other German conductors of the time including Karajan, Knappertsbusch, Bohm, Strauss, etc, he could have got out but chose to stay. Of course it's easy for us to judge when we were not in that position but Furtwangler should not be treated as some sort of misunderstood hero for this time as some have tried to make out.


For all Furtwangler and others in his time knew, Nazis could have lasted for decades. Keep that in mind when you judge his words about wanting to stay to preserve German musical culture.


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> For all Furtwangler and others in his time knew, Nazis could have lasted for decades. Keep that in mind when you judge his words about wanting to stay to preserve German musical culture.


Read what I said.


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> Read what I said.


Why, did you edit your post in the meantime?


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> Why, did you edit your post in the meantime?


I edited it at 7.38


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> I edited it at 7.38


Looks the same to me...


----------



## larold

It is difficult to understand the greatness of a person like Furtwangler in our era of cookie cutter orchestras, conductors and soloists. His style went back to a time when there was individuality in all those things and a time when the metronome was not the standard for musical metrics. He had an elastic beat. There was a joke players couldn't understand his beat but recordings make it obvious they did.

It is important to understand all of Furtwangler's recordings are one offs -- either radio broadcasts or other "live" performances. Again this is monumentally different from the way recordings are made today -- patched together from studio or multiple concert recordings so as to appear perfect when in fact they are not.

Among his other great qualities he also had the ability to make time stand still, one such instance being his cycle of Mahler Mahler Wayfarer songs with baritone-bass Alfred Poell of the Vienna Opera.

Furtwangler was also the greatest exponent of the "German" school of conducting the first Viennese school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) from the recorded era. No other German conductor of his time or previous to him had the same reputation.

He was the foil, if you will, to the great Toscanini whose literalism was cast against Furtwangler's humanism. Toscanini famously said Beethoven's Eroica symphony to him was "simply allegro con brio." This was not Furtwangler's approach; he saw music as a force of nature and, as the interpreter, it was up to him to unleash and represent that force.

Furtwangler cast a titanic shadow across the world in the days after World War II and after his death 1954. He trained the very great conductor Jascha Horenstein who continued his philosophical way of interpreting music well into the 20th century.

Another conductor vastly influenced by Furtwangler and his way was Eugen Jochum, one of the last great conductors to use an elastic beat who was among the most esteemed interpreters of Anton Bruckner's music in which Furtwangler himself specialized to great critical and public acclaim. Until Furtwangler's recordings most of Bruckner's symphonies had never been heard by the music-loving public.

As recently as the end of the 20th century musicologists like Jim Svejda (now a critic for Fanfare magazine) recommended Furtwangler's recordings of Bruckner symphonies above all others in books like this one:









It should also be stated, if it hasn't already, the Furtwangler stayed in Germany during the Nazi regime but did not capitulate and never gave the Nazi salute even though Hitler, Goebbels and other members of the party thought of him as their conductor and regularly attended his concerts. He was held after the war and thought to be a Nazi sympathizer but inquires showed he was not. There is a film about this:









These are just a few reasons why Furtwangler was considered one of the greatest conductors in history and why he continues to be held in high regard the better part of a century after his death.


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> Looks the same to me...


Well why is the problem then?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Given the current state of computer technology, would it be possible for someone to take old recordings and improve them more radically than they seem willing to do generally? By this I mean an approach where the intention is to make the result sound as pristine as possible, without much concern for whether you might as a result be moving away from a faithful clean-up and into a reimagination of what it might have sounded like.
I know that purist fans might dislike this, and say that you can listen beyond the recording issues, but for simpletons like me it would be great to hear something where Furtwangler's approach was presented in pseudo-modern sound, even if you suffered from a bit of speculative manipulation and some might say that the result sounds artificial.
I know nothing about sound engineering, but from my naive view it seems odd that any tape hiss or problematic distortions might be unremovable with an aggressive approach to remastering, at the cost of some guesswork by the engineers. Is the problem economic, that there may well be no market for such a product?
To give a parallel example, I bought a set of Gieseking recordings some time ago, off the back of claims about what a fine pianist he was. Well maybe, but I can't really tell from the recordings, and I never listen to them, because of the quality. Was his touch great? Search me.


----------



## DavidA

larold said:


> It is difficult to understand the greatness of a person like Furtwangler in *our era of cookie cutter orchestras, conductors and soloists. *His style went back to a time when there was individuality in all those things and a time when the metronome was not the standard for musical metrics. He had an elastic beat. There was a joke players couldn't understand his beat but recordings make it obvious they did.
> 
> Among his other great qualities he also had the ability to make time stand still, one such instance being his cycle of Mahler Mahler Wayfarer songs with baritone-bass Alfred Poell of the Vienna Opera.
> 
> Furtwangler was also the greatest exponent of the "German" school of conducting the first Viennese school (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) from the recorded era. No other German conductor of his time or previous to him had the same reputation. He was the foil, if you will, to the great Toscanini whose literalism was cast against Furtwangler's humanism.
> 
> Furtwangler cast a titanic shadow across the world in the days after World War II and after his death 1954. He trained the very great conductor Jascha Horenstein who continued his philosophical way of interpreting music well into the 20th century.
> 
> Another very great conductor vastly influenced by Furtwangler and his way was Eugen Jochum, among the most esteemed interpreters of Anton Bruckner's music in which Furtwangler himself specialized to great critical and public acclaim. Until Bruckner's recordings most of Bruckner's symphonies had never been heard by the music-loving public.
> 
> These are just a few reasons why he was considered one of the greatest conductors in history and why he continues to be held in high regard the better part of a century after his death.


With respect I think this is a vast over-statement as musically we do a lot of things better than in the times of Furtwangler or indeed Toscanini. The standards of playing have risen beyond recognition since his day for example.. We are playing early and baroque and much classical musician a far more appropriate way. To keep harking back to a bygone age like this as if all was perfect is unrealistic and a denial of history. This is not to diminish in any way Furtwangler's achievement but this blind sort of worship which rubbishes present day musicians seems totally out of proportion.


----------



## Malx

Eclectic Al said:


> Given the current state of computer technology, would it be possible for someone to take old recordings and improve them more radically than they seem willing to do generally? By this I mean an approach where the intention is to make the result sound as pristine as possible, without much concern for whether you might as a result be moving away from a faithful clean-up and into a reimagination of what it might have sounded like.
> I know that purist fans might dislike this, and say that you can listen beyond the recording issues, but for simpletons like me it would be great to hear something where Furtwangler's approach was presented in pseudo-modern sound, even if you suffered from a bit of speculative manipulation and some might say that the result sounds artificial.
> I know nothing about sound engineering, but from my naive view it seems odd that any tape hiss or problematic distortions might be unremovable with an aggressive approach to remastering, at the cost of some guesswork by the engineers. Is the problem economic, that there may well be no market for such a product?
> To give a parallel example, I bought a set of Gieseking recordings some time ago, off the back of claims about what a fine pianist he was. Well maybe, but I can't really tell from the recordings, and I never listen to them, because of the quality. Was his touch great? Search me.


Try sampling some remasters from the Pristine site they are to my mind and ears the best available.

https://www.pristineclassical.com/


----------



## larold

It is always fun to hear someone denigrate genius and then amend it by saying something like, "This is not to diminish in any way Furtwangler’s achievement but this blind sort of worship which rubbishes present day musicians seems totally out of proportion."

This is to me is same as saying we should disregard Babe Ruth and Picasso since so many other great artists have come along since them and the technical aspects of their art forms are so much better today.

As to recorded sound, musical theory and what gets recorded today we are almost a century past Furtwangler; isn't it reasonable to expect recording technology and musical exploration would be greater than in 1954? Compared to 70 years before that, in 1880 or so, it's a pretty good bet the standards of 1954 for all these things were vastly beyond anything being done then. 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have "blind worship" to artists of that time such as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler among others who were geniuses beyond everyone else in their industry.

As the above post indicates it isn't blind worship that continues to bind people to Furtwangler; it is magnificent artistry. He was one of the greatest in history at what he did, the reason his recordings are still be remade, re-marketed, and sold again even though there hasn't been anything new in almost 70 years.


----------



## DavidA

larold said:


> *It is always fun to hear someone denigrate genius* and then amend it by saying something like, "This is not to diminish in any way Furtwangler's achievement but this blind sort of worship which rubbishes present day musicians seems totally out of proportion."
> 
> We are almost a century past Furtwangler; isn't it reasonable to expect recording technology and musical exploration would be greater than in 1954? Compared to 70 years before that, in 1880 or so, it's a pretty good bet the standards of 1954 for all these things were vastly beyond anything being done then. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have "blind worship" to people alive then such as Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner and Mahler, among others who were geniuses beyond everyone else in their industry.
> 
> It isn't blind worship that continues to bind people to Furtwangler. It is magnificent artistry. He was one of the greatest in history at what he did, the reason his recordings are still be remade, re-marketed, and sold again even though there hasn't been anything new in 70 years.


This is the sort of defensive statement I would expect to hear from people who put conductors on a god-like status. I am not denigrating Furty just saying we do some things a lot better which we do! If you can only appreciate a musician of the past by rubbishing present day musicians it seems to me a poor show.


----------



## Enthusiast

I can think of so many Furtwangler recordings that are a revelation. This rarely happens for me with historical performances (no matter how good they are) but there are so many recordings that are (for me) very very special - Beethoven and Bruckner especially. I'm sure those who disagree have tried and listened to at least some of the recordings that wow me so any difference of opinion is just down to individual taste. Lots of people feel as I do or even more passionate. And lots of people, it seems, just don't get it. For me Furtwangler was just so great that I instinctively feel sympathy for those who can't hear the greatness.


----------



## rice

Eclectic Al said:


> Given the current state of computer technology, would it be possible for someone to take old recordings and improve them more radically than they seem willing to do generally? By this I mean an approach where the intention is to make the result sound as pristine as possible, without much concern for whether you might as a result be moving away from a faithful clean-up and into a reimagination of what it might have sounded like.
> I know that purist fans might dislike this, and say that you can listen beyond the recording issues, but for simpletons like me it would be great to hear something where Furtwangler's approach was presented in pseudo-modern sound, even if you suffered from a bit of speculative manipulation and some might say that the result sounds artificial.
> I know nothing about sound engineering, but from my naive view it seems odd that any tape hiss or problematic distortions might be unremovable with an aggressive approach to remastering, at the cost of some guesswork by the engineers. Is the problem economic, that there may well be no market for such a product?
> To give a parallel example, I bought a set of Gieseking recordings some time ago, off the back of claims about what a fine pianist he was. Well maybe, but I can't really tell from the recordings, and I never listen to them, because of the quality. Was his touch great? Search me.


Traditional technology can't get you too far. But I speculate AI and machine learning are going to massively improve noise removal. Let's hope someone will find it's economically viable to bring the tech to classical music and we may see it in a few years.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Yes, from my ignorant perspective I was imagining that machine learning might be a breakthrough that had not yet occurred, but would offer lots of promise.


----------



## Fabulin

Why not just have someone re-enact his performances from recordings? I am sure there are such conductors who have memorized his interpretations of certain pieces...


----------



## Eclectic Al

Fabulin said:


> Why not just have someone re-enact his performances from recordings? I am sure there are such conductors who have memorized his interpretations of certain pieces...


Interesting idea. So you'd have to find a conductor who is sufficiently self-effacing to say "this isn't really me, this is WF", and yet sufficiently good to pull it off. A challenge?


----------



## larold

_I can think of so many Furtwangler recordings that are a revelation._

I'd say if you listen to this one you'll hear something you've never heard before.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My favorite individual Furtwängler recordings, which to me are indeed revelations;

- Beethoven 9th, BPO, 3/22/42

- Bruckner 8th, VPO, 1944

- Brahms 1st, NDR, 1951

- Beethoven 5th, BPO, 5/25/47

- Beethoven 3rd, VPO, 1944

- Bruckner 9th, BPO, 1944

- Brahms 4th, BPO, 1949

- Tchaikovsky 6th, BPO, 1951

- Brahms 2nd, VPO, 1945

- Beethoven Coriolan overture, BPO, 1943


----------



## Fabulin

Eclectic Al said:


> Interesting idea. So you'd have to find a conductor who is sufficiently self-effacing to say "this isn't really me, this is WF", and yet sufficiently good to pull it off. A challenge?


Modern conductors are supposedly so good at being literal. Let's call it an interest in history of music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Barenboim essentially emulates Furtwängler’s interpretations. In fact, in the movie Taking Sides cited above, when Furtwängler is conducting in wartime Berlin it is actually Barenboim we are hearing conducting.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Yes, they do say that Barenboim follows Furtwangler but I haven't really heard that in his work, which so often lacks the insights, inevitability and flow that Furtwangler achieved despite his flexible approach to tempo and so on. The best Barenboim performances seem not to be in the Furtwangler mode.


----------



## Malx

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, they do say that Barenboim follows Furtwangler but I haven't really heard that in his work, which so often lacks the insights, inevitability and flow that Furtwangler achieved despite his flexible approach to tempo and so on. The best Barenboim performances seem not to be in the Furtwangler mode.


Barenboim may well trying to follow the style and intentions of Furtwangler - but he is faced with a entirely different set of orchestral players, presumably schooled in a very different manner to the players of the orchestras Furtwangler stood in front of.
Therefore even if Barenboim was perfect in his replication of the style the sound would still be different. My conclusion is trying to recreate is futile, even if as a poster above suggests that a form of advanced AI could be applied.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> Given the current state of computer technology, would it be possible for someone to take old recordings and improve them more radically than they seem willing to do generally? By this I mean an approach where the intention is to make the result sound as pristine as possible, without much concern for whether you might as a result be moving away from a faithful clean-up and into a reimagination of what it might have sounded like.
> I know that purist fans might dislike this, and say that you can listen beyond the recording issues, but for simpletons like me it would be great to hear something where Furtwangler's approach was presented in pseudo-modern sound, even if you suffered from a bit of speculative manipulation and some might say that the result sounds artificial.
> I know nothing about sound engineering, but from my naive view it seems odd that any tape hiss or problematic distortions might be unremovable with an aggressive approach to remastering, at the cost of some guesswork by the engineers. Is the problem economic, that there may well be no market for such a product?
> To give a parallel example, I bought a set of Gieseking recordings some time ago, off the back of claims about what a fine pianist he was. Well maybe, but I can't really tell from the recordings, and I never listen to them, because of the quality. Was his touch great? Search me.


There are limitations now but I can imagine a future where science can take the missing pieces of information and fill in the gaps, basically create a document where a recording of old will sound as if recorded today. Or, oops the future of today. I think.


----------



## Merl

Like you, Becca, I've never seen the fascination either but that does not stop me admiring some of Furty's recordings. Like any conductor I listen to the recording and it either works for me or does not, I don't care who it is. Some rave over WF's intense interpretations whilst others find they represent a distorted view of many works. Whatever your opinion I think you owe it to yourself to see what the fuss is about. Some will get it, others will definitely not. I've heard most of Furty's 'must hear' recordings and many aren't for me or are better realised, performed, played and recorded by many others but they're all interesting, valid interpretations with a very individual voice. It's a shame he didn't live longer to put down more of his recordings in more acceptable sound. 

As far as his relationship with a certain national socialist party is concerned it's impossible for us to understand what it must have been like working in Germany during that period of political volatility and is irrelevant to the recordings he made. Furty lived for his art. He was no nazi and he led the biggest and best orchestra in Germany back then. I often wonder what may have happened if Goering hadn't intervened and WF had taken the New York Philharmonic job. Ilife may have been more relaxed for him away from the Nazi regime but who's to say he'd have coped well in America. Furtwangler was a very complicated and interesting personality. Anyone who hasn't done any reading about his life should go off and redress that as soon as possible.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Also, "fascination" makes it sound like there is some reason beyond the music itself for responding to him. For most of us "Furtwängler fans" it is a simple matter of preferring his recordings to most others.


Let's get real here. Lots of singers/celebrities/talents are surrounded by the mystique of the person, and Furtwangler is no different.

I can see it happening as new posters appear to be converts as if somehow it happen by accident listening to a recording. Hardly. And it goes on with all the other recordings (any name) that the "elders" lavish praise on to unsuspecting newbies, the legend stays alive.....


----------



## DavidA

Malx said:


> *Barenboim may well trying to follow the style and intentions of Furtwangler* - but he is faced with a entirely different set of orchestral players, presumably schooled in a very different manner to the players of the orchestras Furtwangler stood in front of.
> Therefore even if Barenboim was perfect in his replication of the style the sound would still be different. My conclusion is trying to recreate is futile, even if as a poster above suggests that a form of advanced AI could be applied.


The problem is that Furtwangler had a style completely his own, one which was impossible to copy or imitate. It was instinctive. Any imitation would be poor.


----------



## Heck148

Fabulin said:


> In this case what prevails is that which is easier to teach.


?? what does that mean?? the literalist/"escrit" approach does not mean blind, strict, rigid adherence to the score...it's a style aimed at reducing what were perceived as romantic style excesses and mannerisms that had been arbitrarily applied to masterworks of a previous period.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well it is an opinion shared by an awful lot of people. Furtwängler has the biggest following of any of those first half of the century conductors, including Toscanini.


baloney....Toscanini has far, far more adherents among conductors of the 20th century, and present day than WF...the WF style of extreme romanticism really went out with him..the literalist approach has prevailed, undeniably....I'm not knocking Furtwangler, he was a great musician...but the current of classical music-making ran in a different direction during the 20th century...he was a holdover from the 19th century romantic style....things changed....the Toscanini/Weingartner approach prevailed.



> "I always knew the way Toscanini conducted Beethoven was wrong!"


Interesting. for me the action went in the exact opposite direction....Toscanini. Reiner, Szell..seemed so right compared with WF.



> Toscanini was extremely skilled but didn't let the music breathe and did not possess a scintilla of the depth or understanding of harmonic narrative of Furtwängler.


Nonsense...a personal opinion for which there is no substantial support. The old argument applies - <<with WF - Are we listening to Beethoven?? or are we listening to Furtwangler??>>



> To say that Furtwängler "seemed" profound is like saying Einstein "seemed" intelligent or that Mozart "seemed" talented.


No, with Einstein and Mozart we have tangible evidence of genius....not to say that Furtwangler might not have been a genius, but his approach to interpretation is very subjective....it works for some, not so much for others.



> Finally, I can't escape the irony that Furtwängler himself detested conservatories. He believed they stifled individual inspiration and creativity in music, producing instead an assembly line of mere technicians. His concern was indeed prophetic.


OK...there's definityely a point to be made there....but how, then, did he profess to teach young musicians the art and craft of music-making??


----------



## Bigbang

Becca said:


> I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm * however interest has gotten the better of me so...
> 
> I have long been wondering what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so much better than most of what has come since. Yes I can understand that he was one of the top conductors of the first half of the 20th century but that doesn't explain why he is seen as THE interpretive icon. Perhaps some can offer insights into the matter.
> 
> I should note that while I do have some favourite conductors, there are things that I both like and dislike about all of them so I don't see any as rising above the others.
> 
> * In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...
> View attachment 136028


I noticed some posters have assumed you were perplexed and did not agree with the premise you brought up. However I see nothing specifically that reveal this but rather asking why others have this view. Maybe some know your views but I did not read this here though it appears as if maybe this is your position.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It only "prevailed" in the US, partly because technical brilliance was always more coveted over here and party because of Toscanini's influence.


It prevailed all over Europe as well.



> Also, Furtwängler made it clear that as you say it is easier to conduct according to the simple, clear conservatory method.


?? what might that be?? I'm not aware of any universal, or generally applied conservatory method for conducting an orchestra.


> What Furtwängler aimed for was more than simple clarity, and more often than not he achieved it.


Every great conductor strives for more than "simple clarity". What WF aimed for was his own personal vision of how music should sound based on the romantic style to which he adhered. fine....that's not the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way. it works for some, not so much for others.


----------



## JAS

Heck148 said:


> baloney....Toscanini has far, far more adherents among conductors of the 20th century, and present day than WF...the WF style of extreme romanticism really went out with him..the literalist approach has prevailed, undeniably....I'm not knocking Furtwangler, he was a great musician...but the current of classical music-making ran in a different direction during the 20th century...he was a holdover from the 19th century romantic style....things changed....the Toscanini/Weingartner approach prevailed.


One of the problems with discussions of this sort is always that people tend to think of the current moment in time as an endpoint. There are plenty of examples, over the course of history, where things came, went, and returned. Assuming that classical music survives, we can only speculate about how it will be presented in the future, especially the distant future.


----------



## Gray Bean

Some modern critics and listeners are allergic to anything other than a literalist reading of a score. I call it musical fundamentalism. In my opinion what Furtwangler does is interpret the music. Sometimes it is called old-fashioned, Romantic, willful, interventionist...whatever. He was an original. There is no doubt.
Is there a modern conductor who comes close to him? Barenboim tries. I think Bernstein succeeded in his sometimes derided late recordings. Just my take.
I would add that WF opened my ears to Bruckner. Before hearing his Bruckner, I always found it very boring. His performances of 8 and 9 are revelations as is his Beethoven 9.


----------



## Heck148

larold said:


> ...His style went back to a time when there was individuality in all those things and a time when the metronome was not the standard for musical metrics. He had an elastic beat. There was a joke players couldn't understand his beat but recordings make it obvious they did.


Toscanini, Reiner and Monteux had very elastic beats as well...supple, flexible...they don't employ the extreme tempo distortions of WF, but it is a total misconception to characterize Toscanini, Weingartner, etc as rigid time-beaters...it simply is not so. [I'm not saying you made such a claim]



> It is important to understand all of Furtwangler's recordings are one offs -- either radio broadcasts or other "live" performances.


True, but many of Toscanini's are live performances or broadcasts, as well. alot of Reiner live performances are available today, as well....with AT and FR, it is amazing how similar the live performances are to the studio recordings. 


> Again this is monumentally different from the way recordings are made today -- patched together from studio or multiple concert recordings so as to appear perfect when in fact they are not.


true - patched together recordings can be very near perfect, but they risk losing the musical flow, the continuity....Ormandy drove his musicians nuts with his recording method - <<10 measures and stop...10 measures and stop...and so on>> then paste the whole thing together...

It's true that the schools of conducting/interpretation diverged between WF, and Toscanini/Weingartner...I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other...however, thru the latter part of the 20th century, into the present, the literalist school has prevailed...we do not hear much Furtwangler, Mengelberg style performances these days...


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> I can think of so many Furtwangler recordings that are a revelation......I'm sure those who disagree have tried and listened to at least some of the recordings that wow me so any difference of opinion is just down to individual taste.


That is me...as I stated previously, when I first got into classical/concert music, I was blown away by Furtwangler...it seemed so profound, so deep, so expressive....but as I became familiar with other styles this changed a bit - WF sounded mannered, even distorted, or dare I say it?? - _portentous_...
I guess I just didn't buy into the concept that every harmonic half note in a Brahms or Beethoven symphony must be imbued with a cosmic significance...
But I modified that as I went along...I don't think that WF was phony in any way...He truly believed in what he was doing, thought it to be the true way to express the music...iow - he wasn't putting anyone on....it just doesn't appeal all that much to me.


----------



## MaxKellerman

Speaking for myself, because a great number of his recordings are absolutely overwhelming in their intensity and endlessly rewarding in the depth of their vision. In a way I see a lot of similarities with Furtwangler and another of my favorite performers of the 20th century -- Maria Callas. In both cases there is a unique phenomenon that one is not merely listening to an interpretation, but rather an almost visionary act of co-creation.

I am especially fond of Furtwangler's Wagner.


----------



## Heck148

Fabulin said:


> Why not just have someone re-enact his performances from recordings? I am sure there are such conductors who have memorized his interpretations of certain pieces...


There are videos of great Maestros of the past, conducting entire pieces...i remember one of Weingartner, leading, iirc, Beethoven Eroica mvt I....it would be perfectly possible to put this on a screen in front of an orchestra, and let them play, following what they see on the screen....might be interesting...I don't know if it's been done


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, they do say that Barenboim follows Furtwangler but I haven't really heard that in his work, which so often lacks the insights, inevitability and flow that Furtwangler achieved despite his flexible approach to tempo and so on. The best Barenboim performances seem not to be in the Furtwangler mode.


I've heard that Barenboim is as "disciple" of Furtwangler, but it is not so apparent in his conducting. I've seen him live, several times, and have many of his recordings....yes, there is some influence, but nowhere near the extent of WF....
I happen to like Barenboim, in general - his early Bruckner and Schumann cycles with Chicago, on DG, are really outstanding. I heard a live Bruckner #8 that was terrific, preceded by a magical "Parsifal" Prelude...I don't recall any great Furtwanglerian influences tho...


----------



## Bigbang

Gray Bean said:


> Some modern critics and listeners are allergic to anything other than a literalist reading of a score. I call it musical fundamentalism. In my opinion what Furtwangler does is interpret the music. Sometimes it is called old-fashioned, Romantic, willful, interventionist...whatever. He was an original. There is no doubt.
> Is there a modern conductor who comes close to him? Barenboim tries. I think Bernstein succeeded in his sometimes derided late recordings. Just my take.
> I would add that WF opened my ears to Bruckner. Before hearing his Bruckner, I always found it very boring. His performances of 8 and 9 are revelations as is his Beethoven 9.


Well, people claim that there is some literal reading of the score. As soon as a conductor "looks" at the score the literal part is thrown out the window. How can a composer write a literal reading of the score? How is it possible to know what intentions are realized and not? And, how can a composer not know once written that someone will bring something out of the score the composer would not have thought up.

It gets really old to think that there is this thing out there called a score that exist in some reality as objective and all one has to do is literally interpret it. In fact, if people are arguing over it on so many fronts pretty well proves that such a thing does not exist. I am getting dangerously close to encroaching on religious doctrine as people argue over this and the author is missing in action but no matter, it is right there written as is.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Like you, Becca, I've never seen the fascination either but that does not stop me admiring some of Furty's recordings. Like any conductor I listen to the recording and it either works for me or does not, I don't care who it is. Some rave over WF's intense interpretations whilst others find they represent a distorted view of many works. Whatever your opinion I think you owe it to yourself to see what the fuss is about. Some will get it, others will definitely not. I've heard most of Furty's 'must hear' recordings and many aren't for me or are better realised, performed, played and recorded by many others but they're all interesting, valid interpretations with a very individual voice. It's a shame he didn't live longer to put down more of his recordings in more acceptable sound.


Very well said!!


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> One of the problems with discussions of this sort is always that people tend to think of the current moment in time as an endpoint. There are plenty of examples, over the course of history, where things came, went, and returned. Assuming that classical music survives, we can only speculate about how it will be presented in the future, especially the distant future.


Indeed, the romantic style may certainly return to prevalence....or perhaps a merging of the two styles in some new formation.


----------



## Merl

I have a lot of Barenboim (Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, etc) and don't find very many of his recordings Furtwangleresque apart from his 2nd Beethoven cycle (Beethoven for All) where he actually strove for that particular style. Interestingly that is his weakest set and got a lot of criticism on release. His first set is slower, bigger and more granitic in style but is way superior in every way.


----------



## Bigbang

Heck148 said:


> Indeed, the romantic style may certainly return to prevalence....or perhaps a merging of the two styles in some new formation.


Is it gone? If I can purchase cds of all types of interpretations now I see it as a matter of choice. What does seem obscure is the future orchestra. The players who are multitasking all the while...seems like back before technology allow instant connections, musicians would have more focus on the music. I cannot help but think today that during a performance some performers are thinking of their smartphones....what am I missing............

I am a little biased towards today's performers, not sure the future looks that bright so I hope all this music is preserved well for the future.

Edit add on: Might add no one has knocked on my door and ask to see my cds and censor what I can hear or not. And then haul off the "banned" cds to be burned with the books, and whatever else deemed unworthy.....yet............


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bigbang said:


> Let's get real here. Lots of singers/celebrities/talents are surrounded by the mystique of the person, and Furtwangler is no different.
> 
> I can see it happening as new posters appear to be converts as if somehow it happen by accident listening to a recording. Hardly. And it goes on with all the other recordings (any name) that the "elders" lavish praise on to unsuspecting newbies, the legend stays alive.....


That's circular reasoning. Because a conductor has a mystique attached to him, this proves his appeal lies in the mystique and not the actual recordings. I suppose then that the popularity of Bach and Beethoven is also bogus, according to your logic. Good art ceases being good art as soon as it becomes popular.


----------



## Heck148

Bigbang said:


> Is it gone? If I can purchase cds of all types of interpretations now I see it as a matter of choice. What does seem obscure is the future orchestra. The players who are multitasking all the while...seems like back before technology allow instant connections, musicians would have more focus on the music. I cannot help but think today that during a performance some performers are thinking of their smartphones....what am I missing............


There are indeeed differences in today's music world regarding orchestras...two things, which, imo, have led to a more generic, homogeneous orchestral performance style:

1.) the widespread, instantaneous availability of recordings, videos, information, that is easily accessed by musicians all over the world...the national, or regional "flavor" of orchestras has largely broken down, certainly in the ranks of the 2nd or 3rd level ensembles, which are very good overall...the 2nd, 3rd tier orchestras are much better than they were in past years or periods.
2.) the present audition process - this has homogenized performance criteria to a huge degree. orchestra applicants now perform at least 2 rounds of auditions before a committee - initial screening, preliminary performance level...the music director does not become involved until the final rounds, to hear those applicants forwarded by committee...the watchwords are, therefore - play totally accurately technically and rhythmically, "play safe", do nothing controversial, "color inside the lines", "don't p*ss anyone off"....
This is a marked change from a previous era - when the conductor had sole control over hiring and firing....the conductor would hear a particular player, realize that his/her style would fit well with his concept, arrange an audition, and likely hire that musician. this led to remarkable unanimity of ensemble and sound for that orchestra, esp for those conductors who held long tenures - ie - Szell, Ormandy....but many others as well. the top orchestras had their own characteristic sound, style, approach, tha could be readily identified....
The top orchestras still do this, as they have feeder orchestras, programs, conservatories that further that particular style and promote those students to enter the top orchestra...but the 2nd, 3rd tier groups do not enjoy this "farm" program to any great extent...


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's circular reasoning. Because a conductor has a mystique attached to him, this proves his appeal lies in the mystique and not the actual recordings. I suppose then that the popularity of Bach and Beethoven is also bogus, according to your logic. Good art ceases being good art as soon as it becomes popular.


No not at all. In fact, I am amazed here on this forum, posters can form opinions of recordings on a dime, with hardly the time to reflect. With all this lightening speed I am supposed to think they are giving out honest opinions of what they feel? Or perhaps they are under the influence of more senior classical music enthusiasts who they are trying to aspire to.

Not sure what to make of good art and being popular but Beethoven and Bach ain't popular. Beethoven is just an easy composer to get for the newbie on average. Everything is based on what came before it so Furtwangler was influenced and now he influences those who make music today. My point is that not everyone is "in touch" with what they really want in CM so his fan base might be some who simply want to be in it for popularity sake.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bigbang said:


> With all this lightening speed I am supposed to think they are giving out honest opinions of what they feel? Or perhaps they are under the influence of more senior classical music enthusiasts who they are trying to aspire to.


This is all self-serving conjecture on your part with zero validity. The only thing I have to thank my elders for is exposure to Furtwängler. My preference for his recordings is entirely my own and also entirely consistent with my general tastes before I ever had heard of Furtwängler. As a voice student I always prioritized being a thinking artist over being a trained technical monkey. Remember the words again of my old friend - "I always knew the way Toscanini conducted Beethoven was wrong!" - we are all individuals reacting with our own minds and tastes, not merely reacting as we are told. Well...reflecting on some of the comments here....most of us anyway.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> baloney....Toscanini has far, far more adherents among conductors of the 20th century, and present day than WF...the WF style of extreme romanticism really went out with him..the literalist approach has prevailed, undeniably....I'm not knocking Furtwangler, he was a great musician...but the current of classical music-making ran in a different direction during the 20th century...he was a holdover from the 19th century romantic style....things changed....the Toscanini/Weingartner approach prevailed.
> 
> Interesting. for me the action went in the exact opposite direction....Toscanini. Reiner, Szell..seemed so right compared with WF.
> 
> Nonsense...a personal opinion for which there is no substantial support. The old argument applies - <<with WF - Are we listening to Beethoven?? or are we listening to Furtwangler??>>
> 
> No, with Einstein and Mozart we have tangible evidence of genius....not to say that Furtwangler might not have been a genius, but his approach to interpretation is very subjective....it works for some, not so much for others.
> 
> OK...there's definityely a point to be made there....but how, then, did he profess to teach young musicians the art and craft of music-making??


Much of this is simply your opinion vs my opinion, but two major points with which I take issue factually:

1) It is intellectually dishonest to say that Toscanini's Beethoven is more popular than Furtwangler's. It simply a false statement. Google best Beethoven conductors and the first three names are Karajan, Furtwangler, and Bernstein. Toscanini does not even make the first page.

Look at our own forum with the same question posed and Furtwangler is mentioned much more than Toscanini. In fact your own post is the only one championing AT.

Best conductors/orchestras for Beethoven's symphonies

Check Amazon: Both conductors were roughly contemporaneous, with live and studio recordings from the 30s to the 50s, though Toscanini having more in studio. But Furtwangler's recordings have twice as many Amazon reviews as Toscanini.

So your assertion that Toscanini "won" is not supported by evidence.

What I will say is that modern taste definitely tends more towards the fast, efficient, and mechanical. That's not due to Toscanini, it is simply the way society has evolved. Which leads me to...

2) Your own posts describe Furtwangler as a 19th century Romantic relic. How on earth can you simultaneously claim that his interpretation of Romantic German repertoire is anything other than idiomatic? It doesn't fit YOUR aesthetic, but by your own admission you are a creature of 20th century "innovation." (others on this thread are as well) That's all fine and dandy, but don't paint it as anything other than what it is - fitting German Romantic repertoire into YOUR aesthetic. It's not like I am saying Furtwangler's approach should be co-opted for all repertoire. His Verdi Otello is fascinating and exciting but terribly wrong. Give me Toscanini any day here. But the reverse is also true with the German Romantics. I have a strange thing for idiomatic interpretation of great works.

Which is why I say that it is Furtwangler - not your time beaters - who is showing fidelity to the compositions.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Incidentally, this set is an absolute gold mine, much much preferable to the complete EMI set, with the exception of Tristan und Isolde which one can get separately.



















The wartime Bruckner 5th, 8th, and 9th / Beethoven, 4th, 5th, 7th, Coriolan overture / Brahms 2nd / Strauss Sinfonia domestica...

...the postwar Beethoven 5th, 7th, 8th, Egmont overture / Brahms 1st and 3rd / Bruckner 4th and 7th / Tchaikovsky 6th / Wagner overtures / Schubert 8th and 9th / Schumann 4th / Haydn 88th / Strauss Metamophosen...to say nothing of the DVD of his incomparable Salzburg Don Giovanni...

...The only major holes are a Beethoven 3rd, 6th or 9th or a Brahms 4th. I have no idea why the 1953 VPO 9th was not included as it is a wonderful recording previously issued by DG.

But the performances are top caliber. More essential Furtwangler than I've ever seen collected together, though the Audite RIAS box is also great.


----------



## Bulldog

On ArkivMusic, Furtwangler has 67 entries for Beethoven, Toscanini 35. Furtwangler is the legend here.


----------



## Gray Bean

Adding my small experience: Hearing one of WF's recordings of Bruckner 8 25 years ago really changed my opinion of this composer and my ability to "hear" Bruckner. IMO, no one conducted or conducts 7-9 like him. It was like hearing the music for the first time...a wonderful experience. I don't know about his mystique. I don't like the recorded sound but the music sounds created from the podium. Astounding. Just my take on it.


----------



## Bigbang

Gray Bean said:


> Adding my small experience: Hearing one of WF's recordings of Bruckner 8 25 years ago really changed my opinion of this composer and my ability to "hear" Bruckner. IMO, no one conducted or conducts 7-9 like him. It was like hearing the music for the first time...a wonderful experience. I don't know about his mystique. I don't like the recorded sound but the music sounds created from the podium. Astounding. Just my take on it.


I have the Bruckner 9, bought recently @library donation--marking 50th anniversary of his death. 6 cd but was missing the interview cd. Nice collection but will stream Bruckner 8 when I get the chance.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is all self-serving conjecture on your part with zero validity. The only thing I have to thank my elders for is exposure to Furtwängler. My preference for his recordings is entirely my own and also entirely consistent with my general tastes before I ever had heard of Furtwängler. As a voice student I always prioritized being a thinking artist over being a trained technical monkey. Remember the words again of my old friend - "I always knew the way Toscanini conducted Beethoven was wrong!" - we are all individuals reacting with our own minds and tastes, not merely reacting as we are told. Well...reflecting on some of the comments here....most of us anyway.


Perhaps, but I really do like you say and decide for myself. I do not have any particular way about my choices so surprises are in store for me. I had a family member tell me once that Furtwangler was the conductor for Beethoven 6th. Described how it affected her but I knew she was not a collector but a casual listener. If one has limited experience in comparisons, one only knows what one knows. The debate about Furtwangler is not relevant to me.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Much of this is simply your opinion vs my opinion...


right, STOP THERE.



> but two major points with which I take issue factually.


Sorry, not "factually", it's your opinion



> 1) It is intellectually dishonest to say that Toscanini's Beethoven is more popular than Furtwangler's. It simply a false statement. _Google best Beethoven conductors.._...


LOL!! Oh please!! You've got to be kidding!! <<Google search>> is now a credible source of music criticism and assessment??!! :lol: that is so lame it barely merits a response....I couldn't give a f*c* what _Google search_ says about Beethoven performance!! :lol:



> Look at our own forum with the sam.....


 total hogwash. again, so lame it barely warrants a response...is the post count on this forum supposed to be some sort of valid assessment of intepretive greatness?? you've got to be kidding!! tell me you are??...by this criteria, Karajan is the greatest interpeter of every single composer, of every single orchestra composition ever written...sorry, I, for one, ain't buyin' it....



> Check Amazon: Both c....


again, invalid, worthless, to be ignored....



> So your assertion that Toscanini "won" is not supported by evidence.


of course it is - how many present day conductors follow the WF approach of ultra-romanticism?? How many follow the literalist school?? Virtually all of them, from mid-late 20th century on...It's not a matter of right or wrong, better or worse...one style simply superseded, surpassed the other in performance practice.



> What I will say is that modern taste definitely tends more towards the fast, efficient, and mechanical.


Except that Toscanini and Weingartner developed their approach long, long before this - 100 years ago - early 20th century, by the 20s, 30s, for sure...hardly contemporary with modern tendencies and increased emphasis on technique and mechanics.



> ..... that his interpretation of Romantic German repertoire is anything other than idiomatic?....
> don't paint it as anything other than what it is - *fitting German Romantic repertoire into YOUR aesthetic.*


LOL!! but that's exactly what you are doing!! fitting German Romantic ideals to your aesthetic!! and that's what Toscanini et al were reacting against....Who gave you the inside track on ultimate truth about how to perform Beethoven?? who gave Furtwangler the exclusive path to "ultimate truth" regarding Beethoven?? NOBODY!! 
Go back to the score....that's a good starting point....



> Which is why I say that it is Furtwangler - not your time beaters - who is showing fidelity to the compositions.


flawed premise based on faulty assumption not in evidence - Toscanini, Weingartner etc, are not mere "time-beaters"

I know you love Furtwangler, that is fine by me....but do not presume to claim that his approach is somehow more valid, more genuine, the "True Path", or anything else...it is WF's concept of how he wanted the music to go....nothing more....it works for you, and for others...
but please, don't ever again try to cite "Google search" or Amazon websites as valid musical sources... that's just lame BS...


----------



## NightHawk

I like Furtwängler's 9th recorded at the Lucerne Festival in 1954, 3 months before his death. The quartet of soloists consists of Schwarzkopf, Cavelti, Haefliger, and Edelmann (SATB, respectively). However, I can't say that it is absolutely my favorite - the other 9th that I greatly love is the Erich Leinsdorf studio performance with Boston recorded in the late 60's with soloists Marsh, Veasey, Domingo, and Milnes. A big plus is that Domingo doesn't sound like an Italian Tenor either - his work with the other soloists is wonderful. This recording is a full-throttled performance with an orchestra that astonishes. The tempi are so satisfying and Leinsdorf seems as though he is channeling Beethoven.


----------



## Heck148

Bulldog said:


> On ArkivMusic, Furtwangler has 67 entries for Beethoven, Toscanini 35. Furtwangler is the legend here.


:lol::lol: Karajan has 90 - so I guess he's the greatest Beethoven interpeter ever??!! that is funny....interesting criteria....

so, if we compare Beyonce, J-Lo, Shakira, etc - whoever sells the most recordings is the best, the greatest artist??....artistic quality is now determined by marketing, packaging, sales promotion??
Wow....


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The ideal starting places for Furtwängler are:
> 
> 1) 1954 Lucerne Beethoven 9th on Audite
> 
> 2) Schumann 4th on DG
> 
> 3) three Music & Arts box sets:
> 
> - wartime Beethoven symphonies 4-7 & 9
> - Brahms symphonies 1-4
> - Bruckner symphonies 4-9
> 
> 4) EMI Tristan und Isolde


Great choices. But I would substitute the abridged Live 1947 Tristan. The studio recording is great; the live performance is unsurpassed.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

With Becca, I must confess to never have understood the Furtwängler phenomenon either. I do however accept that I am the philistine, and I am still trying, when I get the opportunity. However, Furt has never given me the "aha" experience I get with the greats of the past; Klemperer, Szell, Beecham, Toscanini. Take two examples, the first you'd think at the core of his repertoire:









Yet, I don't know what to make of this. It's not that it's slow, that criticism could be levied against Klemperer , yet Klemperer is a model of clarity and conviction in comparison.

Here's another example, of a piece that all the above competition did fabulously:








Again I don't know what to make of this. Is it personal? Yes, perhaps. But it's more like personalized and I almost don't recognize the piece.

Even the more central Furtwängler repertoire baffles me. E.g. the mad dash to the finishing line of Beethoven's 9th doesn't sound convincing to me . I accept the premise of the personal, organic view of the piece, but to me there is no revelation in it. Nothing comparable to the unwavering pulse of a Klemperer, the deftness of execution of a Szell, the elegance of phrasing of a Beecham. Or the highly personal sound of Mravinsky or Ancerl.


----------



## Gray Bean

The beauty of it is that one is free to enjoy them all: Furtwangler, Szell, Klemperer, Beecham, Mravinsky, Ancerl...I certainly do!
And I just love that mad dash to the finish line in WF’s Beethoven 9!


----------



## millionrainbows

Are the wartime Beethoven recordings the ones with bombs going off in the background? I bet those are cool!

Those really old pre-tape recordings taken from metal disc masters are recorded with a lot of midrange, and these are great for listening to in noisy old vehicles. They really cut through the road noise.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Hermastersvoice said:


> Take two examples, the first you'd think at the core of his repertoire:


I do not know a single person who would cite Bach's St Matthew Passion and Verdi's Otello as central examples of Furtwangler's art. They are both interesting, but not first choices for me. Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, and Wagner are where Furtwangler is not only at his best but IMO the supreme interpreter on record.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> right, STOP THERE.
> 
> Sorry, not "factually", it's your opinion


Heck....deep breath....repeat after me: READING COMPREHENSION

I said most all of this is subjective opinion, you agreed, I then proceeded to make two points outside of our subjective opinions, and you revert back to your opinion on the conductors' respective merits. Again, missed my point entirely.



Heck148 said:


> LOL!! Oh please!! You've got to be kidding!! <<Google search>> is now a credible source of music criticism and assessment??!! :lol: that is so lame it barely merits a response....I couldn't give a f*c* what _Google search_ says about Beethoven performance!! :lol:
> 
> total hogwash. again, so lame it barely warrants a response...is the post count on this forum supposed to be some sort of valid assessment of intepretive greatness?? you've got to be kidding!! tell me you are??...by this criteria, Karajan is the greatest interpeter of every single composer, of every single orchestra composition ever written...sorry, I, for one, ain't buyin' it....
> 
> again, invalid, worthless, to be ignored....


Heck, did I say popularity necessarily equals greatness? I said that it is false to state that Toscanini's Beethoven (or German repertoire in general) is more popular than Furtwangler's. That is demonstratably true. Your response is not to refute my statement but move the goal posts by putting words in my mouth. Again, reading comprehension.

You had no response to my point because you know darned well what I said was true. So your tactic was to protest, "Yeah, well what does that prove? So I guess Karajan is the greatest conductor ever, huh?" Again, reading comprehension, I already said most of this discussion is our respective opinions but I was making a point that really is not subject to our opinions. You basically conceded that.

I will add, however, that Karajan is not a valid comparison to Furtwangler and Toscanini. I pointed out - and you ignored - that Furtwangler and Toscanini are basically contemporaneous. Neither has any set advantage over the other in terms of exposure. Obviously, Karajan recording three stereo sets of Beethoven had a huge advantage. But why should Furtwangler be more popular than Toscanini today if, as you say, Toscanini has been proven to have "won" the modern debate over style? And to bring up Toscanini being more popular in conducting conservatories is absurd. Furtwangler had no discernible method. He didn't believe in method. He didn't even believe in conservatories!

Again, outside of our subjective opinions my point was that Furtwangler is more popular today than his contemporary rival, Toscanini. You have no answer to this except to try and move the goal posts.



Heck148 said:


> LOL!! but that's exactly what you are doing!! fitting German Romantic ideals to your aesthetic!! and that's what Toscanini et al were reacting against....Who gave you the inside track on ultimate truth about how to perform Beethoven?? who gave Furtwangler the exclusive path to "ultimate truth" regarding Beethoven?? NOBODY!!
> Go back to the score....that's a good starting point....
> 
> flawed premise based on faulty assumption not in evidence - Toscanini, Weingartner etc, are not mere "time-beaters"
> 
> I know you love Furtwangler, that is fine by me....but do not presume to claim that his approach is somehow more valid, more genuine, the "True Path", or anything else...it is WF's concept of how he wanted the music to go....nothing more....it works for you, and for others...
> but please, don't ever again try to cite "Google search" or Amazon websites as valid musical sources... that's just lame BS...


Heck, by YOUR OWN WORDS you called Furtwangler a relic of 19th century German Romantic style which "lost out" to 20th century technique. You wholly ignore my point that Furtwangler's style - regardless of your or my opinions on it - is closer to that of the compositions in which he specialized.

Again, you move the goal posts on my point by moving this argument to the subjective question of which style is more valid. That wasn't my point.

READING COMPREHENSION

Also, get out of here with that "look at the score" BS. Applying a style to a score is unavoidable. A conductor who beats time metronomically is applying a style just as much as one who is liberally flexible with tempo. The score does not speak for itself. Interpretation is unavoidable. And - as we both agreed - it comes down to subjective opinion, not the canard of objective authority.

As for time beater...it is all relative. I enjoy all the conductors you mentioned. On the thread I linked for Talk Classical Beethoven conducting, the final post is mine where I also recommend those conductors, just not above Furtwangler...it is all relative.

To me Toscanini is the one imposing his will on Beethoven, like a bull in a china shop. Furtwangler is the one naturally following the score like a winding river.

It all comes down to our opinions on what we hear.


----------



## 1996D

He's good and he had a great orchestra to work with, but his recordings are of poor quality. For piano this doesn't matter too much because of the natural clarity of the instrument, but for orchestra, sound quality is essential to grasp all the instruments, and the recording equipment was very poor in his day.

Only the most stubborn of people listen to his recordings, there is just so much better quality available. With exception of his conducting of piano concertos.


----------



## bz3

I'd be more interested in why someone _isn't_ a Furt fan than why they are. Becca, of course, did not imply that she is not a fan but did pose the question. As I understand it she is a musician and almost certainly more accomplished than I am so I'd be interested in why (or if) she finds Furtwangler unremarkable. I do not mean to put words in anyone's mouth, however, or start a 'firestorm.'

For myself much of what has been stated I agree with. Furtwangler's interpretations are marked by his large-scale feel for the work. Some composers will pace their works admirably in, EG, the 1st movement of Beethoven's 9th but few reach consensus on the whole. For my part the '52 Tristan would put Furtwangler in my top 10 conductors if he had never done anything else. Happily he did, even if most of it is in bad sound. For Brahms and Beethoven I find no equal, though I often listen to others for either HIP or sound quality reasons - that's more of an opinion, though. The notion that '52 Tristan is the gold standard isn't an opinion it's fact.


----------



## 1996D

bz3 said:


> I'd be more interested in why someone _isn't_ a Furt fan than why they are. Becca, of course, did not imply that she is not a fan but did pose the question. As I understand it she is a musician and almost certainly more accomplished than I am so I'd be interested in why (or if) she finds Furtwangler unremarkable. I do not mean to put words in anyone's mouth, however, or start a 'firestorm.'
> 
> For myself much of what has been stated I agree with. Furtwangler's interpretations are marked by his large-scale feel for the work. Some composers will pace their works admirably in, EG, the 1st movement of Beethoven's 9th but few reach consensus on the whole. For my part the '52 Tristan would put Furtwangler in my top 10 conductors if he had never done anything else. Happily he did, even if most of it is in bad sound. For Brahms and Beethoven I find no equal, though I often listen to others for either HIP or sound quality reasons - that's more of an opinion, though. The notion that '52 Tristan is the gold standard isn't an opinion it's fact.


I don't think anyone doubts his ability and if they do they're ignoring the huge impact he had on following conductors. They had his work to build on and with better recording equipment.


----------



## Becca

bz3 said:


> I'd be more interested in why someone _isn't_ a Furt fan than why they are. Becca, of course, did not imply that she is not a fan but did pose the question. As I understand it she is a musician and almost certainly more accomplished than I am so I'd be interested in why (or if) she finds Furtwangler unremarkable. I do not mean to put words in anyone's mouth, however, or start a 'firestorm.'


I was careful to be mostly non-specific in my OP, but here goes...

- I am not a musician.
- I am not a fan of him although I recognize that he was a very good conductor and there are a lot of very good performances which are available.
- The difference between very good and exceptional is entirely a personal view.
- I have listened a range of things by him, also watched a number of videos. So far I have not heard anything that I find exceptional when compared to performances by others, hence the OP.
- While I am sure that I will check out some performances over time and maybe even find some that click, there is enough to listen to which is outside WF's core, that doing so is not a priority.

The more that I read in this thread, especially when it comes to the various described epiphanies, the more it all comes across as a form of musical religion, a personal belief. If that's how some people feel, then I will respect it but it isn't my belief system - I don't believe that any conductor can check anywhere near all the boxes.


----------



## Heck148

Gray Bean said:


> The beauty of it is that one is free to enjoy them all: Furtwangler, Szell, Klemperer, Beecham, Mravinsky, Ancerl...I certainly do!
> And I just love that mad dash to the finish line in WF's Beethoven 9!


Which is theWF LvB #9 that ends with the fabulous trainwreck?? with the orchestra strewn wildly all over the pages of the score?? that one is a real hoot!!


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> I was careful to be mostly non-specific in my OP, but here goes...
> 
> - I am not a musician.
> - I am not a fan of him although I recognize that he was a very good conductor and there are a lot of very good performances which are available.
> - The difference between very good and exceptional is entirely a personal view.
> - I have listened a range of things by him, also watched a number of videos. So far I have not heard anything that I find exceptional when compared to performances by others, hence the OP.
> - While I am sure that I will check out some performances over time and maybe even find some that click, there is enough to listen to which is outside WF's core, that doing so is not a priority.
> 
> The more that I read in this thread, especially when it comes to the various described epiphanies, the more it all comes across as a form of musical religion, a personal belief. If that's how some people feel, then I will respect it but it isn't my belief system.


He conducts Brahms' 2nd and Beethoven's 5th piano concertos as good as anyone. Perfect balance and symmetry.

Humans naturally equate symmetry with beauty, there is no taste involved in this.


----------



## Becca

Your concept of "perfect balance and symmetry" does not necessarily have any relationship to anyone else, so it is definitely personal taste.


----------



## 1996D

Becca said:


> Your concept of "perfect balance and symmetry" does not necessarily have any relationship to anyone else, so it is definitely personal taste.


He keeps perfect tempo and takes the work as a whole to figure out the symmetry. There is clear technique and craft involved, it's not taste.

Another thing he masters is dynamics. So many poor conductors today play unnecessarily loud and make it impossible to enjoy the performances without having to constantly change the volume, or if in a live setting hurting the listeners ears.


----------



## bz3

Becca said:


> - I am not a musician.


My mistake, I thought I recalled you stating you were a concert musician.


Becca said:


> The more that I read in this thread, especially when it comes to the various described epiphanies, the more it all comes across as a form of musical religion, a personal belief. If that's how some people feel, then I will respect it but it isn't my belief system - I don't believe that any conductor can check anywhere near all the boxes.


I don't regard recognizing Furtwangler's genius as anything more of a 'musical religion' or 'belief system' than being a fan Wagner, Bach, or Gould. He is simply one of the very best at his profession and if you don't like his work then that perhaps says more about you than it does Furtwangler. It's not that you're 'wrong' in any sense, just as someone who doesn't like Stravinsky or Schubert is 'wrong.' Perhaps you're right even, and he's unremarkable. Perhaps the Wagner detractors on this forum are correct and his operas are unremarkable. Yet, critical opinion begs to differ.


----------



## Gray Bean

Heck148 said:


> Which is theWF LvB #9 that ends with the fabulous trainwreck?? with the orchestra strewn wildly all over the pages of the score?? that one is a real hoot!!


I don't know that one, but I'd love to hear it! The ones I have are the EMI with the Bayreuth Festival Orchestra and the one from Lucerne.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, did I say popularity necessarily equals greatness?


I'm sorry, you tried to support your opinion with _Google search_ hits, and _Amazon website _listings....as if that has anything to do with musical merit...[someone else cited Arkiv listings] you thereby pretty much trashed your own argument...


> I said that it is false to state that Toscanini's Beethoven (or German repertoire in general) is more popular than Furtwangler's. That is demonstratably true.


Total Baloney, it's false.....go to 10 concerts featuring performances of Beethoven symphonies....how many will be conducted in a style similar to that of Toscanini, Szell, Reiner, Monteux, Abbado, Dorati - my guess?? probably *10*.
How many will be conducted in the style of Furtwangler or Mengelberg?? my estimate?? -0- my point is made.....
next...


> So your tactic was to protest, "Yeah, well what does that prove? So I guess Karajan is the greatest conductor ever, huh?"


Hey,sporto , you're ther one who cited Google hits and Amazon listings as "proof" of interpretative value of music...I simply took that nonsense and threw it back in your face...you don't like it?? then don't present silly premises...



> Heck, by YOUR OWN WORDS you called Furtwangler a relic of 19th century German Romantic style which "lost out" to 20th century technique.


It's true - go to the 10 Beethoven concerts  the literalists prevailed...indisputable, at this point in time. How many conductors conduct like Furtwangler at present??



> You wholly ignore my point that Furtwangler's style - regardless of your or my opinions on it - is closer to that of the compositions in which he specialized.


more personal opinion that you try to pass off as "fact"...nonsense.



> Applying a style to a score is unavoidable. A conductor who beats time metronomically is applying a style just as much as one who is liberally flexible with tempo. The score does not speak for itself.... Interpretation is unavoidable. And - as we both agreed - it comes down to subjective opinion, not the canard of objective authority.


the score is much like the script of a play....except, more instruction, indication, is generally given as to its delivery - tempo markings - initial speed [plus changes - accelerando, ritardando, etc]...style markings - _maestoso, con brio, dolce, feroce, cantabile,_etc, etc



> As for time beater...it is all relative. I enjoy all the conductors you mentioned. On the thread I linked for Talk Classical Beethoven conducting, the final post is mine where I also recommend those conductors, just not above Furtwangler...it is all relative.


Where you run aground is your assertion that Furtwangler had the inside track on the only "true" way to present German Romantic music...that somehow this is indisputable "fact"....and to support this supposition, you try to offer _Google search_ hits, _Amazon listings_ as if some commercial marketing promotions have anything whatever to do with the subject....that is NOT a very persuasive argument.


----------



## Gray Bean

I’ll weigh in with this: I was a late-comer to WF. Heard one of his Bruckner 8’s when I was 27 and had been listening to classical music since childhood. I had certainly heard of him. But as I posted earlier, that record opened my ears to Bruckner and WF. Afterwards, it took time for me to fully appreciate his art. I am now 52 years old and have listened to many of his performances over and over. I’m utterly convinced of his greatness and unique gifts. IMO only late Bernstein comes close. That being said, I would encourage anyone who doesn’t know or appreciate his art to invest in the DG box set, give it some serious listening over a long period of time, and then report back. Just a thought.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Gray Bean said:


> I don't know that one, but I'd love to hear it! The ones I have are the EMI with the Bayreuth Festival Orchestra and the one from Lucerne.


All of his 9th recordings end that way. It's certainly eccentric, and to some people it just comes out sounding like an appalling mess.
But I kind of like it, it's like he's being purposefully overambitious.


----------



## Woodduck

This thead has grown rapidly, but I don't see many attempts to describe what a Furtwangler performance actually sounds like. His flexible tempos are well-known, as is the fact that that approach to tempo is characteristic of an earlier era and more or less extinct now. In that particular aspect he was specifically a disciple of Wagner, who discusses the need, in his essay "On Conducting," to modify tempo according to both the texture and the expression of the music. Flexibility of tempo can be heard in many recordings made by many musicians, including conductors, singers and instrumentalists, who made their careers in the 19th century. In the case of singers the tempo changes can be both frequent and extreme in a way today's musicians probably couldn't emulate if they wanted to. Mahler was an exponent of this "Wagner school" of conducting, as was Willem Mengelberg, whose recordings can be revelatory. Furtwangler's tempo changes are, in my judgment, quite organically related to the substance of the music, as Wagner suggested.

One of the most important aspects of Furtwangler's conducting is his attention to the entire musical texture, especially to the bass line, which he properly perceived as the foundation of music's harmonic structure and of its sonority, as well as an entity with its own melodic profile and expressive power. His characteristic orchestral sound has been described as "primal," as if the music were somehow grounded in the earth and spoke to us from some limitless depth. This is one factor that makes his Wagner and his Bruckner so distinctive and effective. But he was equally concerned with every level of music's structure, and again he shows himself to be a follower of Wagner's advice in always seeking out and finding what Wagner called the "melos," the expressive melodic gesture in even parts of the musical texture often regarded as accompaniment or filler. The inner voices are alive in a Furtwangler performance, and without ever being artificially stressed (as some conductors in search of novelty will do) they have things to say to us as they contribute to an overall impression of music as something alive and breathing.

Furtwangler's music-making reveals a deep and passionate mind at work, it takes nothing for granted, and it's at the opposite pole from the literal and the mechanical. There's nothing definitive about his work, any more than there is with other great musicians, but there are works in which he gives me an emotional and intellectual experience unapproached by anyone else. I'd put his Bruckner and some of his Wagner and Brahms in that category. With respect to Bruckner's last three symphonies and the second act of T_ristan und Isolde,_ I might have to retract that comment about definitiveness. His evocation of Wagner's "night of love" really must be experienced, even if you think you know this music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Becca said:


> The more that I read in this thread, especially when it comes to the various described epiphanies, the more it all comes across as a form of musical religion, a personal belief.


I don't think that is a fair statement. It's a slight bit demeaning actually. All art appreciation could be described this way. The implication is that there is no tangible reason for Furtwangler appreciation and it is some sort of mystical belief system as opposed to what we are actually hearing. The reality is that the mechanics of Furtwangler's interpretations have been broken down and analyzed probably more than any conductor in history. It is not all simply "legend."

Have you heard this recording, his BPO Eroica from 12/8/52? It might be the best example of Furtwangler's Beethoven combining both interpretation and decent sound quality. Like Klemperer and Barbirolli, the sound world was very important to Furtwangler, which is why he didn't rush through. He spent his professional life building the deep, powerful tone of the BPO.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Which is theWF LvB #9 that ends with the fabulous trainwreck?? with the orchestra strewn wildly all over the pages of the score?? that one is a real hoot!!


I believe you are probably referring to the 3/22/42. I believe it was in the summer of 1994 that I played the end of that recording for a friend, the precise passage you are talking about, and we both giggled at it. I returned the recording to the store, thinking "this is great Beethoven?"

A little over a year later I listened to the more familiar EMI Bayreuth version, and suddenly something clicked for me. I noticed something in Furtwangler that I had not heard with others. The tone itself was telling a story. I could actually hear the undulations of the different emotions in the music. Stringent thoughts of tempi and execution left my brain. I just listened.

Not long later I repurchased the 1942 9th, and I experienced an even stronger reaction. The overwhelming ferocity of the first movement, the achingly eloquent adagio, and the desperate plea of the finale. It quickly became one of my 2-3 favorite recordings of all time.

I started out my music appreciation with simplistic, stringent criteria. We grow, we change, we evolve. Some of us.


----------



## Gray Bean

Agreed. And many listeners hear specific records and have "Epiphanies" if you will. I've had many....and not just with Furtwangler! I would add that being more "open" to various interpretations has developed in my musical adventures over the years.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Hey,sporto , you're ther one who cited Google hits and Amazon listings as "proof" of interpretative value of music...I simply took that nonsense and threw it back in your face...you don't like it?? then don't present silly premises...


Heck....WTH????...I just spent an entire post chiding you for lacking reading comprehension and all you do is repeat yourself by again willfully distorting what I said? You are simply not being intellectually honest here. I specifically cited Google hits and Amazon listings as proof of POPULARITY, not artistic merit, a point you put into argument yourself by claiming Toscanini's Beethoven interpretation had "won" in the court of popular opinion. I also pointed out that as exact contemporaries there is no explanation under your scenario of history that Furtwangler recordings should be more popular today than Toscanini's. You have NO ANSWER for this, so you keep repeating the same blatant lies about my posts.

And as for 10 of 10 conductors today sounding more like Toscanini than Furtwangler....judging by the general mediocrity of today's conductors that is not exactly a point for your side. As someone else pointed out earlier, it is always easier to simply beat time. They are not consciously emulating Toscanini. They're just being mediocre. But there are also several illustrious conductors who do revere Furtwangler, however, whether they sound like him or not. Gergiev comes to mind.

If we are going to continue this discussion, can you please refrain from blatant lying about my posts??? I never freaking used Google hits and Amazon reviews as proof of artistic merit. I clearly and specifically did so to prove popularity, a question which YOU YOURSELF put into argument.

Show some basic respect for what people type before responding next time, please!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> I'll weigh in with this: I was a late-comer to WF. Heard one of his Bruckner 8's when I was 27 and had been listening to classical music since childhood. I had certainly heard of him. But as I posted earlier, that record opened my ears to Bruckner and WF. Afterwards, it took time for me to fully appreciate his art. I am now 52 years old and have listened to many of his performances over and over. I'm utterly convinced of his greatness and unique gifts. IMO only late Bernstein comes close. That being said, I would encourage anyone who doesn't know or appreciate his art to invest in the DG box set, give it some serious listening over a long period of time, and then report back. Just a thought.


It's nice to see so many commenting on appreciating WF via the Bruckner 8th. His 1944 VPO, very well recorded, is one of my desert island recordings along with the 1942 Beethoven 9th and Huberman's Brahms violin concerto.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> This thead has grown rapidly, but I don't see many attempts to describe what a Furtwangler performance actually sounds like. His flexible tempos are well-known, as is the fact that that approach to tempo is characteristic of an earlier era and more or less extinct now. In that particular aspect he was specifically a disciple of Wagner, who discusses the need, in his essay "On Conducting," to modify tempo according to both the texture and the expression of the music. Flexibility of tempo can be heard in many recordings made by many musicians, including conductors, singers and instrumentalists, who made their careers in the 19th century. In the case of singers the tempo changes can be both frequent and extreme in a way today's musicians probably couldn't emulate if they wanted to. Mahler was an exponent of this "Wagner school" of conducting, as was Willem Mengelberg, whose recordings can be revelatory. Furtwangler's tempo changes are, in my judgment, quite organically related to the substance of the music, as Wagner suggested.
> 
> One of the most important aspects of Furtwangler's conducting is his attention to the entire musical texture, especially to the bass line, which he properly perceived as the foundation of music's harmonic structure and of its sonority, as well as an entity with its own melodic profile and expressive power. His characteristic orchestral sound has been described as "primal," as if the music were somehow grounded in the earth and spoke to us from some limitless depth. This is one factor that makes his Wagner and his Bruckner so distinctive and effective. But he was equally concerned with every level of music's structure, and again he shows himself to be a follower of Wagner's advice in always seeking out and finding what Wagner called the "melos," the expressive melodic gesture in even parts of the musical texture often regarded as accompaniment or filler. The inner voices are alive in a Furtwangler performance, and without ever being artificially stressed (as some conductors in search of novelty will do) they have things to say to us as they contribute to an overall impression of music as something alive and breathing.
> 
> Furtwangler's music-making reveals a deep and passionate mind at work, it takes nothing for granted, and it's at the opposite pole from the literal and the mechanical. There's nothing definitive about his work, any more than there is with other great musicians, but there are works in which he gives me an emotional and intellectual experience unapproached by anyone else. I'd put his Bruckner and some of his Wagner and Brahms in that category. With respect to Bruckner's last three symphonies and the second act of T_ristan und Isolde,_ I might have to retract that comment about definitiveness. His evocation of Wagner's "night of love" really must be experienced, even if you think you know this music.


Well stated. This was a man who stood for all the hours while conducting Wagner operas at Bayreuth because he said "the sound is different" when he sits. There was nothing haphazard about his approach. As Menuhin stated when contrasting WF with Toscanini, "it takes greater skill to be precise about a living, fluid shape than it does about a square shape."


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> This thead has grown rapidly, but I don't see many attempts to describe what a Furtwangler performance actually sounds like. His flexible tempos are well-known, as is the fact that that approach to tempo is characteristic of an earlier era and more or less extinct now. In that particular aspect he was specifically a disciple of Wagner, who discusses the need, in his essay "On Conducting," to modify tempo according to both the texture and the expression of the music. Flexibility of tempo can be heard in many recordings made by many musicians, including conductors, singers and instrumentalists, who made their careers in the 19th century. In the case of singers the tempo changes can be both frequent and extreme in a way today's musicians probably couldn't emulate if they wanted to. Mahler was an exponent of this "Wagner school" of conducting, as was Willem Mengelberg, whose recordings can be revelatory. Furtwangler's tempo changes are, in my judgment, quite organically related to the substance of the music, as Wagner suggested.


To do this the conductor has to be able to both remember every detail and be able to keep absolute tempo in each phase just to keep the entire work cohesive and congruent because of the changes in speed. It's also necessary to see the work as a whole at all times and be able to adjust.

It's not a school because the talent required is rare, and the rehearsing time must also be longer; the special talent of Furtwangler certainly does not come from Wagner's On Conducting.

Carlos Kleiber also does this, in my opinion better than anyone, it's a shame he has so few recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well stated. This was a man who stood for all the hours while conducting Wagner operas at Bayreuth because he said "the sound is different" when he sits. There was nothing haphazard about his approach. As Menuhin stated when contrasting WF with Toscanini, "it takes greater skill to be precise about a living, fluid shape than it does about a square shape."


In all fairness, others have stood for hours while conducting Wagner at Bayreuth! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck....WTH????...I just spent an entire post chiding you for lacking reading comprehension and all you do is repeat yourself by again willfully distorting what I said? You are simply not being intellectually honest here. I specifically cited Google hits and Amazon listings as proof of POPULARITY, not artistic merit, a point you put into argument yourself by claiming Toscanini's Beethoven interpretation had "won" in the court of popular opinion. I also pointed out that as exact contemporaries there is no explanation under your scenario of history that Furtwangler recordings should be more popular today than Toscanini's. You have NO ANSWER for this, so you keep repeating the same blatant lies about my posts.
> 
> And as for 10 of 10 conductors today sounding more like Toscanini than Furtwangler....judging by the general mediocrity of today's conductors that is not exactly a point for your side. As someone else pointed out earlier, it is always easier to simply beat time. They are not consciously emulating Toscanini. They're just being mediocre. But there are also several illustrious conductors who do revere Furtwangler, however, whether they sound like him or not. Gergiev comes to mind.
> 
> If we are going to continue this discussion, can you please refrain from blatant lying about my posts??? I never freaking used Google hits and Amazon reviews as proof of artistic merit. I clearly and specifically did so to prove popularity, a question which YOU YOURSELF put into argument.
> 
> Show some basic respect for what people type before responding next time, please!


Oh for goodness sake, stop going on about this hobby horse of 'the general mediocrity of today's conductors'. This is a whole load of nonsense. In the past they were mediocre conductors and very good conductors - like there are today. What you haven't got today is the great podium maestros of the past who were the dictators with enormous power. The world has moved on to a more democratic system. There are some extremely good conductors around today but if you take the best of yesterday and compare it with the worst of the day of course yesterday was better. I do think this sort of thing is very tiresome.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Oh for goodness sake, stop going on about this hobby horse of 'the general mediocrity of today's conductors'. This is a whole load of nonsense. In the past they were mediocre conductors and very good conductors - like there are today. What you haven't got today is the great podium maestros of the past who were the dictators with enormous power. The world has moved on to a more democratic system. There are some extremely good conductors around today but if you take the best of yesterday and compare it with the worst of the day of course yesterday was better. I do think this sort of thing is very tiresome.


It is all about emotion and bias. Sentimental impressions like 'everything was better in the past' are being mixed with the idea that scratchy mono recordings are actually a time machine. There is nothing 'intellectual' about musical preferences, as in that case the interpretation would not matter at all.

It is at least significant that the blind admiration and aggressive defense of certain conductors and composers here on TC mostly concerns those who at least have a questionable if not outright partial position in German politics from 1933-1945.

I read that even Sibelius was favored by certain German politicians, active from 1933-1945. Not that the Finnish man could do anything about it, as he stopped working just before that time. But it is at least significant information for an intellectual exercise as to the nature of strong musical preferences.


----------



## millionrainbows

Becca said:


> The more that I read in this thread, especially when it comes to the various described epiphanies, *the more it all comes across as a form of musical religion, a personal belief.* If that's how some people feel, then I will respect it but it isn't my belief system - I don't believe that any conductor can check anywhere near all the boxes.


I've always thought this about the Furtwangler cult. There are some extra-musical associations which reinforce this belief system:

1. Furtwangler takes us back to the 'end of the nineteenth century' so to speak, when the modern world had not yet taken over.
2. The music associated with him is almost always German (Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven), so Furtwangler represents a kind of "going back to the source" of all classical music, which of course is German
3. Implicit in this love of Furtwangler is an implicit 'forgiveness' and redemption of things Germanic, after the events of WWII; a 'keeping of the flame' as an antidote to any bitterness towards Germanic culture, such as that exemplified by Bruno Walter's post-war agenda to elevate and promote Mahler


----------



## Eclectic Al

NLAdriaan said:


> It is all about emotion and bias. Sentimental impressions like 'everything was better in the past' are being mixed with the idea that scratchy mono recordings are actually a time machine. There is nothing 'intellectual' about musical preferences, as in that case the interpretation would not matter at all.
> 
> It is at least significant that the blind admiration and aggressive defense of certain conductors and composers here on TC mostly concerns those who at least have a questionable if not outright partial position in German politics from 1933-1945.
> 
> I read that even Sibelius was favored by certain German politicians, active from 1933-1945. Not that the Finnish man could do anything about it, as he stopped working just before that time. But it is at least significant information for an intellectual exercise as to the nature of strong musical preferences.


I suspect it is the other way round. I can imagine there are some people who ignore the political background in their preferences, and that there are others who are averse to some conductors because of political issues. I really don't believe that there are many at all who engage in "blind admiration and aggressive defence" of conductors because of questionable political positions in 1933-45 Germany. I might be wrong, but I hope not.

Perhaps what happens is that some post adverse reviews about a performer, because they don't like something about their political back-story, but they present their reviews as judgements about the performances - rather than saying that the performance may be fine but they can't look beyond the performer's political back-story. Those who ignore the politics then say that they think the performances are fine, and can't understand the criticism. They are then perceived by the first group as aggressively supporting the performer, because (perhaps sub-consciously) the first group can't understand anyone tolerating the figure that they have questions about.

Personally, I have more of a problem with living artists who may benefit from my spending money on their work when they have, perhaps, engaged in questionable behaviour. When it comes to people who lived in an environment that I, thankfully, have had no experience of, and who had to make their own accommodations with a brutal regime, I tend to suspend judgement unless someone was clearly an out-and-out supporter and backer of the regime. It's too easy for me to think I would have been brave.

However, I think this is all a bit off-topic, unless the fascination with Furtwangler that this thread is about relates to politics, and I get little sense that it is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

millionrainbows said:


> I've always thought this about the Furtwangler cult. There are some extra-musical associations which reinforce this belief system:
> 
> 1. Furtwangler takes us back to the 'end of the nineteenth century' so to speak, when the modern world had not yet taken over.
> 2. The music associated with him is almost always German (Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven), so Furtwangler represents a kind of "going back to the source" of all classical music, which of course is German
> 3. Implicit in this love of Furtwangler is an implicit 'forgiveness' and redemption of things Germanic, after the events of WWII; a 'keeping of the flame' as an antidote to any bitterness towards Germanic culture, such as that exemplified by Bruno Walter's post-war agenda to elevate and promote Mahler


Or....it could be people responding to the music...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I'm hesitant to wade into this (why must these type of threads must be so testy?), but I just want to say that the idea of Furtwangler appreciation being a "cult" or "religion" is ludicrous. If you say that, I think it is only fair to say the same thing for those who like Karajan, Szell, Reiner, Toscanini, etc. etc. above all else. It would be a cult if people were saying "Furtwangler's is the only way" or "I will not even consider any other recordings besides Furtwangler." I don't see that here. Genuine appreciation for his art based on our own opinions is just that - preference. I'd like to assume that all people like me who love Furtwangler came to that opinion through honest listening, not blindly following some sort of cult. For me there's something special about Furtwangler that no other conductor I've heard can offer. This does not mean I am denigrating other conductors just like I am not denigrating all the other composers when I say Bach is my favorite. "Cult" is a strong term, and I firmly believe it should be reserved for things (_outside_ of music, which is only an intense enthusiasm and interest for most of us) that actually merit the word. Please let's engage honestly with the other side rather than throwing around words like that.


----------



## bz3

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Or....it could be people responding to the music...


Nah it's about the holocaust.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Or....it could be people responding to the music...


I don't think people can listen to music completely objectively, so there is always going to be some sort of context associated with it. In the case of Furtwangler, I think this is especially true.

Another factor: Like blues aficionados who are interested in old recordings from the WWII era and before, these old recordings lend a sense of historic authenticity to the experience.


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think people can listen to music completely objectively, so there is always going to be some sort of context associated with it. In the case of Furtwangler, I think this is especially true.
> 
> Another factor: Like blues aficionados who are interested in old recordings from the WWII era and before, these old recordings lend a sense of historic authenticity to the experience.


Or they could just like the music(making).


----------



## millionrainbows

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm hesitant to wade into this (why must these type of threads must be so testy?)


Because of replies like this:




bz3 said:


> Nah it's about the holocaust.


----------



## bz3

millionrainbows said:


> Because of replies like this:


Ahem, it was you who suggested that fans of Furt simply want to rehabilitate post-WW2 Germany. I was merely commenting on the inanity of that statement.

In any case, as a listener who prefers quality stereo sound I'm pretty sure I would have joined a different cult if Furt were indeed one. Inflicting 1940s mono sound on yourself is one step towards Jonestown and I'm just too level-headed for that.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fabulin said:


> Or they could just like the music(making).


Well, isn't there a certain _celebrity status_ attached to Furtwangler as a "great conductor?" That's part of the fascination, isn't it? He's a "brand name" like many other famous conductors like Karajan, Bernstein, Toscanini, etc.

I'm saying that "liking music" _can't _be exclusive of all context, however much you want it to be otherwise, because you are human.

There is certain common knowledge of historical context that is _inescapable, _unless you've been living in a cave all your life.

Perhaps you're attempting to "objectify" the music out of its context as a convenience.


----------



## millionrainbows

bz3 said:


> Ahem, it was you who suggested that fans of Furt simply want to rehabilitate post-WW2 Germany. I was merely commenting on the inanity of that statement.


No, I didn't say that. I said there were _several_ factors at play, one of which is an implicit 'forgiveness' and redemption of things Germanic, after the events of WWII; a 'keeping of the flame' as an antidote to any bitterness towards Germanic culture, such as the reaction exemplified by Bruno Walter's post-war agenda to elevate and promote Mahler.

This did not mention anything specifically like your post did.

"Liking music" can't be exclusive of all context, however much you want it to be otherwise, because we are human. There is certain common knowledge of historical context that is inescapable, unless you've been living in a cave all your life. What's "inane" about that?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I relayed a story earlier about an old friend who literally jumped up and down in his dorm room after hearing Furtwangler 1947 DG Beethoven 5th, saying "I always knew the way Toscanini did it was wrong!" He was simply someone who loved Beethoven and wanted to hear it played well. For me it was the exact same experience, with Beethoven and Brahms symphonies, my favorite repertoire. I just wanted to hear it done well, and still do. As a Jew, people claiming that my response was not based on the music but instead on the context of Nazi Germany is not only insulting but it is closed-minded. It is an attempt to explain away something one cannot connect with or understand. David Hurwitz the reviewer is notorious for this. In fact his review of Furtwangler's "Nazi 9th" as he calls it does exactly that.

I imagine my old friend was jumping for joy because he felt, as I do, that Toscanini and his ilk strangle the music whereas Furtwangler frees it to sound as it was naturally meant to sound. That is our opinion, and others may share it or not share it. But it is our opinion on the MUSIC.


----------



## Fabulin

millionrainbows said:


> Well, isn't there a certain _celebrity status_ attached to Furtwangler as a "great conductor?" That's part of the fascination, isn't it? He's a "brand name" like many other famous conductors like Karajan, Bernstein, Toscanini, etc.
> 
> I'm saying that "liking music" _can't _be exclusive of all context, however much you want it to be otherwise, because you are human.
> 
> There is certain common knowledge of historical context that is _inescapable, _unless you've been living in a cave all your life.
> 
> Perhaps you're attempting to "objectify" the music out of its context as a convenience.


I'm sorry, but that's just arrogance concerning other people's psychology. Your theorizing wouldn't predict a teenager who, knowing nothing about classical music, randomly heard a Brahms symphony on Youtube on smartphone earbuds and forever remembered the name Furtwängler.

You should study biopsychology of music more, and spend less time on sociology.


----------



## bz3

millionrainbows said:


> No, I didn't say that. I said there were _several_ factors at play, one of which is an implicit 'forgiveness' and redemption of things Germanic, after the events of WWII; a 'keeping of the flame' as an antidote to any bitterness towards Germanic culture, such as the reaction exemplified by Bruno Walter's post-war agenda to elevate and promote Mahler.
> 
> This did not mention anything specifically like your post did.
> 
> "Liking music" can't be exclusive of all context, however much you want it to be otherwise, because we are human. There is certain common knowledge of historical context that is inescapable, unless you've been living in a cave all your life. What's "inane" about that?


I am uninterested in extra-musical sophistry. I am young enough to where WW2 is merely incidental to everything in my life but for its historical value. I suppose, in a theoretical sense, that there could have been humans alive in the 1950s who wished to 'redeem' German culture circuitously through listening to Furtwangler's music but that notion is so uninteresting to me that it arises to the level of 'inane.'


----------



## millionrainbows

bz3 said:


> In any case, as a listener who prefers quality stereo sound I'm pretty sure I would have joined a different cult if Furt were indeed one. Inflicting 1940s mono sound on yourself is one step towards Jonestown and I'm just too level-headed for that.


But listening to old mono recordings, as most opera buffs here will attest to, is a fascinating and historically informative activity.
Like watching old black and white film footage used in the documentaries of Ken Burns, it takes us back to another era. This historic sense is all part of the extra-musical "baggage" that makes these recordings attractive. It's not just about the "sound itself."

So don't try to consider Furtwangler recordings apart from these factors.

_Of course_ you wouldn't put these up next to Karajan in SACD and make a credible comparison. 
If you do, you have no clue at all of what we've been talking about in this thread.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If we are going to continue this discussion,....


We aren't...



> I never freaking used Google hits and Amazon reviews as proof of artistic merit.


yes, you did....you opened the door.

If you want to hail Furtwangler as the greatest interpreter of Beethoven, and Germanic music, fine....that is certainly your choice, your privilege. to each his own.
but, *do not try to assert that this is some sort of universal truth, some indisputable dogma that must be observed and agreed to by all. It is your opinion, plain and simple.*
for better or worse, the musical world has, at present, moved away from that aesthetic approach. This is undeniable.
your implication that present day conductors who do not subscribe to the WF ideal are somehow inferior, incompetent, unknowledgeable, whatever, is again, your opinion...Don't purchase their recordings....enjoy your Furtwangler....I'll enjoy my favorites with equal fervor and enthusiasm.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Fabulin said:


> I'm sorry, but that's just arrogance concerning other people's psychology. Your theorizing wouldn't predict a teenager who, knowing nothing about classical music, randomly heard a Brahms symphony on Youtube on smartphone earbuds and forever remembered the name Furtwängler.


And this isn't a matter of opinion. You can dislike Furtwangler until you are dead in the ground, but to pretend that people who hear it differently than you do so for for some concocted, rationalized reason of your invention shows a lack of integrity, a lack of security, and basic ignorance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> We aren't...
> 
> yes, you did....you opened the door.
> 
> If you want to hail Furtwangler as the greatest interpreter of Beethoven, and Germanic music, fine....that is certainly your choice, your privilege. to each his own.
> but, *do not try to assert that this is some sort of universal truth, some indisputable dogma that must be observed and agreed to by all. It is your opinion, plain and simple.*
> for better or worse, the musical world has, at present, moved away from that aesthetic approach. This is undeniable.
> your implication that present day conductors who do not subscribe to the WF ideal are somehow inferior, incompetent, unknowledgeable, whatever, is again, your opinion...Don't purchase their recordings....enjoy your Furtwangler....I'll enjoy my favorites with equal fervor and enthusiasm.


Sir, your posts are beyond hypocritical and dishonest at this point. You simultaneously say it is all subjective opinion but then throw in that oh, by the way, the whole world has sided with Toscanini. When I present proof that the latter is not the case you LIE by moving the goal posts claim that I am conflating popular opinion with artistic merit.

You cannot have it both ways. Either popular opinion is irrelevant or it isn't. Pick a side and stick with it. The reason you keep moving the goal posts is because you are cornered. You cannot explain Furtwangler artistically, and you cannot explain his enduring appeal. So if someone explains why Furtwangler is so great subjectively, you move to claiming that his style is outdated and refuted in modern times. If someone then states that is not the case, you move to stating that popular opinion is not a reflection of artistic merit and accuse me of trying to make it so.

Maybe it's time for you to just raise the white flag.



Heck148 said:


> We aren't...


Oh, I see you did already. Good idea.


----------



## larold

_Another factor: Like blues aficionados who are interested in old recordings from the WWII era and before, these old recordings lend a sense of historic authenticity to the experience._

I once heard a Caruso afficianado state his preference for his old gramophone 78s over any other recordings of the tenor. "When I hear these," he said, "I know I am hearing Caruso."

Stated another way he is not hearing anything done in multiple takes, anything that was processed sound in any way, or anything that was multi-miked or had additional sessions to fill in bad spots on the recordings. They were authentic one offs -- one session that was made into the recording.

Most modern recordings are not made this way though it is clear some Furtwangler remasters process the sound. Pristine Classical among others adds ambiance and channel separation to recordings, for example. That is not Furtwangler though the artistry is.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It would be a cult if people were saying "Furtwangler's is the only way" or "I will not even consider any other recordings besides Furtwangler."


"Cult" is too strong, I agree, and not really applicable. But I dispute the assertion that Furtwangler's is the "true" way, the inside track on the composer's intent, that nobody else can apprehend....that is hogwash...and we see evidence of that here....and I've encountered it occasionally on some other music forums, as well. 
Keep in mind, I was, long ago, a real WF advocate - really got into his recordings....seemed so deep, so profound, so meaningful....As I studied music seriously, to become a professional performer, I found other approaches that I found more valid, that worked better, for me....Generally, I don't think any one conductor, soloist or musician has the sole path to musical "truth". Great music can thrive on a number of different interpretations.

I don't really care that much about a musician's politics or personality....yes, we have some who had Nazi affiliation, who survived or did well under that regime, or under the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union....and yes, there are some great conductors who were really miserable human beings - tyrannical, nasty, bullying, sarcastic...but they produced great music, either as composers, conductors, performers...that's what I judge them by...
if I want to get into the political stuff, I can go to one of the on-line political warfare forums which, of course, are very contentious and polarized.


----------



## Heck148

bz3 said:


> Inflicting 1940s mono sound on yourself is one step towards Jonestown and I'm just too level-headed for that.


What??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> *do not try to assert that this is some sort of universal truth, some indisputable dogma that must be observed and agreed to by all. It is your opinion, plain and simple.*


Heck, this is absolutely disgusting. How do you type such crap with a straight face. I have NEVER said any of this. All I have said is that I prefer WF's recordings to other conductors in German Romantic repertoire. I don't have that right???

I have made it CLEAR OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that this is my subjective opinion. And you keep coming on here and LYING by putting words in my mouth that my opinion is universal dogma. I NEVER EVER SAID THAT.

WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT MY WORDS, HECK???????


----------



## bz3

Heck148 said:


> What??


One day you're trying to make out the oboes on a scratchy, distorted recording with your state of the art audo equipment and the next you're mass murdering your neighbor's kids so they won't get converted to fascism. It's a classic DSM 4 recognized pattern.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I relayed a story earlier about an old friend who literally jumped up and down in his dorm room after hearing Furtwangler 1947 DG Beethoven 5th, saying "I always knew the way Toscanini did it was wrong!" He was simply someone who loved Beethoven and wanted to hear it played well. For me it was the exact same experience, with Beethoven and Brahms symphonies, my favorite repertoire. I just wanted to hear it done well, and still do.


Then I think you both liked it, but for reasons you could not articulate. You were apparently unaware that Furtwangler was from the "Wagnerian style" of conducting. This has a lot to do with being _German_, as I see it. Earlier in the thread, we were told that Furtwangler was a disciple of the Wagnerian school of conducting.



> As a Jew, people claiming that my response was not based on the music but instead on the context of *Nazi Germany* is not only insulting but it is closed-minded.


I never said that. I simply said that Furtwangler was *Germanic* in his approach, and this "Germanic" aspect is part of the attraction.



> I imagine my old friend was jumping for joy because he felt, as I do, that Toscanini and his ilk strangle the music whereas Furtwangler frees it to sound as it was naturally meant to sound. That is our opinion, and others may share it or not share it. But it is our opinion on the MUSIC.


Toscanini was Italian, wasn't he? I always thought his tempos were too fast.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I imagine my old friend was jumping for joy because he felt, as I do, that Toscanini and his ilk strangle the music whereas Furtwangler frees it....


And my old friends used to use that WF LvB #9 with the huge climactic trainwreck as a party record, that we'd listen to when we were partying it up, laughing, having a blast, as a great example of "how not to"....


> as it was naturally meant to sound


oh, please....:devil:


----------



## millionrainbows

Fabulin said:


> You should study biopsychology of music more, and spend less time on sociology.


No, because as I have articulated on other threads, music & art cannot be separated from its human experience.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Emergency


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

millionrainbows said:


> Then I think you both liked it, but for reasons you could not articulate. You were apparently unaware that Furtwangler was from the "Wagnerian style" of conducting. This has a lot to do with being _German_, as I see it. Earlier in the thread, we were told that Furtwangler was a disciple of the Wagnerian school of conducting.
> 
> 
> I never said that. I simply said that Furtwangler was *Germanic* in his approach, and this "Germanic" aspect is part of the attraction.
> 
> Toscanini was Italian, wasn't he? I always thought his tempos were too fast.


Well now we are saying two different things. You are saying that various factors can contribute to the music itself and explain why we respond to it.

What I was talking about was the assertion by some that the context _dictates_ the appreciation, that knowing a recording was done in front of Nazis makes one _imagine_ an intensity in the air. I can only speak for myself of this being hogwash.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> And my old friends used to use that WF LvB #9 with the huge climactic trainwreck as a party record, that we'd listen to when we were partying it up, laughing, having a blast, as a great example of "how not to"....
> 
> oh, please....:devil:


Great, my opinion vs your opinion.

Now tell me why you keep lying and making up things I never said? (Universal truth, my opinion uber alles, and other crap you put in my mouth)

I'll provide an answer and you can try and refute it: You lie and mischaracterize my words because you feel threatened by my opinion. My opinion makes you question your own, and so you go on the attack by claiming I said things I never said.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

And oh by the way....I also relayed the story of how I laughed with a friend over the "trainwreck" on the LvB 9th. That was 25 years ago. I grew out of that. I evolved.

Again, I think it is clear why you feel threatened by my opinion and thus revert to lying and putting words in my mouth.


----------



## millionrainbows

Heck148 said:


> We aren't...
> 
> yes, you did....you opened the door.
> 
> If you want to hail Furtwangler as the greatest interpreter of Beethoven, and Germanic music, fine....that is certainly your choice, your privilege. to each his own.
> but, *do not try to assert that this is some sort of universal truth, some indisputable dogma that must be observed and agreed to by all. It is your opinion, plain and simple.*
> for better or worse, the musical world has, at present, moved away from that aesthetic approach. This is undeniable.
> your implication that present day conductors who do not subscribe to the WF ideal are somehow inferior, incompetent, unknowledgeable, whatever, is again, your opinion...Don't purchase their recordings....enjoy your Furtwangler....I'll enjoy my favorites with equal fervor and enthusiasm.


Yes, but at least Brahmsianhorn has some incidental "back-up context" to his argument. Since Wagner, Bruckner, and Beethoven were all German, this gives the Wagnerian school of conducting some creedence.

Heck148's assertions are based on a totally self-contained narcissistic perception which makes all context irrelevant except his own personal reaction; and we all know that art doesn't exist in such a vacuum.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You simultaneously say...


*NOT INTERESTED*
I've made my points....you tried to support a flawed premise with non-credible sources, got called on it....you trashed your own argument. 
your assertion that Furtwangler's is the only true path, and all others are inferior, or invalid, mere "time-beaters" is nonsense, and the musical world does not support your flawed premise. *It is your opinion only...*
That point is , indeed, indisputable. 
Talk about "white flags", you waved it several posts ago, your pseudo-musical spewage notwithstanding...


----------



## 1996D

For any doubters give this album a try, it's free on spotify.

Not a fan of the slight mic noise, but Furtwangler's so good he makes it work, and Deutsche Grammophon sure know how to remaster.

He has such sensitivity, slows down, great pianissimo, great rubato, yet picks up the tempo when he has to avoid dullness and boredom. Great sense of symmetry, never makes mistakes.

Top 5 all time no doubt.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> All I have said is that I prefer WF's recordings....


*NOT INTERESTED*. you're done....go enjoy your Furtwangler, you have every right to do so. no problem.


----------



## Heck148

bz3 said:


> One day you're trying to make out the oboes on a scratchy, distorted recording with your state of the art audo equipment and the next you're mass murdering your neighbor's kids so they won't get converted to fascism. It's a classic DSM 4 recognized pattern.


good one!! that's funny...:lol::lol:


----------



## Gray Bean

1996D said:


> View attachment 136172
> 
> 
> For any doubters give this album a try, it's free on spotify.
> 
> Not a fan of the slight mic noise, but Furtwangler's so good he makes it work, and Deutsche Grammophon sure know how to remaster.
> 
> He has such sensitivity, slows down, great pianissimo, great rubato, yet picks up the tempo when he has to avoid dullness and boredom. Great sense of symmetry, never makes mistakes.
> 
> Top 5 all time no doubt.


Yes. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.


----------



## millionrainbows

Heck148 said:


> *NOT INTERESTED*
> I've made my points....you tried to support a flawed premise with non-credible sources, got called on it....you trashed your own argument.
> your assertion that Furtwangler's is the only true path, and all others are inferior, or invalid, mere "time-beaters" is nonsense, and the musical world does not support your flawed premise. *It is your opinion only...*


Well, not really. I think that "self-contained" opinions which try to disengage art from its context are narcissistically flawed. If an "organic" approach to conducting is "Germanic," or "Wagnerian," then that connection is inescapable. At least it is a historically-derived opinion with literary back-up (Wagner's writing on conducting).

I think it's disingenuous to try to dis-associate Western classical music from Germanic culture. Like it or not, these are its roots.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Now tell me why you keep...


*NOT INTERESTED*....Go enjoy your Furtwangler, it doesn't threaten me in the least....The fact that I won't acknowledge WF as the ultimate interpeter of German music seems to cause you all manner of discomfiture...it shouldn't...


----------



## Eclectic Al

Here is the original set-up for this thread. Haven't we been on a jouney?

"I have long been wondering what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so much better than most of what has come since. Yes I can understand that he was one of the top conductors of the first half of the 20th century but that doesn't explain why he is seen as THE interpretive icon. Perhaps some can offer insights into the matter."

What I've taken from it is that some people think he interprets the music well, and some disagree. This largely seems to relate to how much he varies the tempo. A few others are interested in politics in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. 

Is that a fair summary?


----------



## Heck148

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but at least Brahmsianhorn has some incidental "back-up context" to his argument. Since Wagner, Bruckner, and Beethoven were all German, this gives the Wagnerian school of conducting some creedence.


sure, for a period of time, it was the accepted style. but the issue was always this - with a Beethoven symphony - are we hearing Beethoven?? or are we hearing Furtwangler/Wagner, putting their extra-musical stamp on the proceedings??....hence the reaction.


> Heck148's assertions are based on a totally self-contained narcissistic perception


nonsense - it's based upon the literalist approach inititated by such as Toscanini and Weingartner, in reaction to the Wagnerian school, which, indisputably, became accepted in the 20th century. It had very talented and powerful disciples - Reiner, Szell, Solti, Monteux, Dorati, etc...My preferences are based upon extensive exposure and experience in both schools...for me, the literalist approach is preferable, it's more in line with my own training and experience...if somebody else prefers the Wagnerian school, fine...to each his own.


----------



## larold

I don't know why it is difficult for anyone to recognize Furtwangler's role in the history of recorded music. He was to Toscanini in the prewar and postwar years what Bernstein became to Karajan in the 1950s through their deaths in 1989 and 1990: the most recognized conductors of mainstream classical music in the world. And like the two giants that followed them they built huge followings of people that still listen to and sometimes swear by their interpretations. And their recording keep being reissued by companies that specialize in improving historic recordings.

I don't think that means they are the only conductors anyone listens to, nor do I believe it means they are necessarily the best. What they have that many others do not, however, is staying power. Their interpretive ways stay steady with a lot people -- both longtime listeners and people new to their art -- over decades. This to me is why they are special.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> *NOT INTERESTED*....Go enjoy your Furtwangler, it doesn't threaten me in the least....The fact that I won't acknowledge WF as the ultimate interpeter of German music seems to cause you all manner of discomfiture...it shouldn't...


It is you who cannot handle difference of opinion and feel threatened by it. If I state that in my opinion WF is superior to Toscanini, and your response is to accuse me of claiming that my truth is the only truth and all the other nonsense you have spewed personally attacking me, that is proof right there that you CANNOT handle an opinion differing from your own. How can you not see this? It is clear as day in your responses.

Would you make the same accusations if I said that Toscanini was superior to Furtwangler? Of course not.

There is a phrase for this: cognitive dissonance. "It cannot be that Toscanini is inferior to Furtwangler. Therefore I must find a deficiency in the person claiming this in order to invalidate his statement."

Just like being on a playground. Or in an Eastman dorm room laughing with friends.


----------



## Heck148

millionrainbows said:


> At least it is a historically-derived opinion with literary back-up (Wagner's writing on conducting).


So what?? Weingartner wrote a book on conducting as well, and he was a leading proponent of going back to the score.
The Wagnerian, ultra-Romantic aproach is certainly valid, and it was certainly the pre-dominant style for a long time...but it was replaced by a newer approach, which is equally valid, and which still prevails at present...but both are arguably intermediate, transient modes, which may well arrive at a newer approach in the future. 


> I think it's disingenuous to try to dis-associate Western classical music from Germanic culture. Like it or not, these are its roots.


Its roots are what Beethoven put in the score....the 19th century Romanticism is not the last word on musical intepretation.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

larold said:


> I don't know why it is difficult for anyone to recognize Furtwangler's role in the history of recorded music. He was to Toscanini in the prewar and postwar years what Bernstein became to Karajan in the 1950s through their deaths in 1989 and 1990: the most recognized conductors of mainstream classical music in the world. And like the two giants that followed them they built huge followings of people that still listen to and sometimes swear by their interpretations. And their recording keep being reissued by companies that specialize in improving historic recordings.
> 
> I don't think that means they are the only conductors anyone listens to, nor do I believe it means they are necessarily the best. What they have that many others do not, however, is staying power. Their interpretive ways stay steady with a lot people -- both longtime listeners and people new to their art -- over decades. This to me is why they are special.


Yes, they were very special in different ways. Toscanini's 1936 7th, 1933 5th, and 1939 3rd are some of my favorite Beethoven recordings. Just because I like Furtwangler better does not mean that I do not appreciate Toscanini. I wish we had more like both of them today!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> the 19th century Romanticism *is not the last word on musical intepretation*.


Saw this at the top of my screen and knew immediately it was you. Such statements are so sophomoric. Making a claim that no one has ever made in order to show disdain for something that threatens you.

Do you consciously distort people's arguments in order to "win?" I almost would feel better if I knew you were aware of it as you are doing it.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is you who cannot handle difference of opini


NOT INTERESTED....give it up....I've no problem with your personal opinion.



> Would you make the same accusations if I said that Toscanini was superior to Furtwangler?


If you said that Toscanini's was the only true approach to Beethoven, I'd say you were full of it. like I do now.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Phew, I thought the HvK threads could get heated. WF seems to win on that over HvK.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Saw this at the top of my screen and knew immediately it was you.


It's nice to see that you spend so much time on my behalf!! very flattering!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> it's based upon the literalist approach inititated by such as Toscanini and Weingartner, in reaction to the Wagnerian school, which, *indisputably*, became accepted in the 20th century.


Ah, now we are back to it being objective truth as opposed to subjective opinion.

Then why is Furtwangler more popular than Toscanini? They were exact contemporaries. Toscanini actually even made more recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> If you said that Toscanini's was the only true approach to Beethoven, I'd say you were full of it. like I do now.


Quote me where I say Furtangler is the only true approach to Beethoven. Hell, I just praised several Toscanini recordings 5 minutes ago. I have actually shown myself on my time on this forum to be much more open-minded then you have. You are a broken record of Toscanini-Reiner-Solti. But you accuse me of being the one who dismisses all other approaches than the one I like.

Do you ever get tired of lying and distorting what people say?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I've always thought this about the Furtwangler cult.


There is no "Furtwangler cult."



> There are some extra-musical associations which reinforce this belief system:


What "belief system"? Who, besides you, is making the "associations"?



> 1. Furtwangler takes us back to the 'end of the nineteenth century' so to speak, when the modern world had not yet taken over.


If Furtwangler's conducting takes _you_ back to the 19th century, do let everyone know how they can hitch a ride. Sounds like fun.



> 2. The music associated with him is almost always German (Wagner, Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven), so Furtwangler represents a kind of "going back to the source" of all classical music, which of course is German


The source of all classical music is not German. There is no single national or ethnic source of all classical music.



> 3. Implicit in this love of Furtwangler is an implicit 'forgiveness' and redemption of things Germanic, after the events of WWII; a 'keeping of the flame' as an antidote to any bitterness towards Germanic culture, such as that exemplified by Bruno Walter's post-war agenda to elevate and promote Mahler


Implicit - no, explicit - in this fantasy is projection onto others of a derogatory stereotype of Germanness as something that needs to be forgiven and redeemed.



> I don't think people can listen to music completely objectively, so there is always going to be some sort of context associated with it. In the case of Furtwangler, I think this is especially true.


How would you know what "context" anyone "associates with" Furtwangler's music-making? Have you ever actually surveyed people who enjoy his work and asked them to describe their "context"?



> Another factor: Like blues aficionados who are interested in old recordings from the WWII era and before, these old recordings lend a sense of historic authenticity to the experience.


I'll lay any odds that for most people the poor sound quality lends only frustration and regret that we can't have his peformances in better sound.



> Well, isn't there a certain celebrity status attached to Furtwangler as a "great conductor?" That's part of the fascination, isn't it? He's a "brand name" like many other famous conductors like Karajan, Bernstein, Toscanini, etc.


Since all great musicians have "a certain celebrity status," Furtwangler's "brand name" explains nothing. But "celebrity" and "brand name" are here merely insulting. A "celebrity" has been jokingly described as someone who's famous for being famous. Furtwangler is famous for being one of the world's great musicians.



> There is certain common knowledge of historical context that is inescapable, unless you've been living in a cave all your life.


"Common knowledge" is not really common. Different people possess different knowledge, and interpret even commonly observed realities differently. Everyone's "context" is different. If you haven't noticed this, particularly in the America of 2020, you've been living in a cave all your life.

The idea that all of us, or most of us, who appreciate Furtwangler do so in a "context" defined by you and your mythical notion of "Germanness" (or whatever) is extraordinarily arrogant.



> Perhaps you're attempting to "objectify" the music out of its context as a convenience.


Perhaps you're attempting to psychoanalyze people, distort their realities to fit your fantasies, and - to use one of your favorite terms of opprobrium - INVALIDATE them.



> So don't try to consider Furtwangler recordings apart from these factors.


So don't try to tell other people how they feel, what they think, and what they should do. If you have anything of value to say about Furtwangler's music-making and would like to express YOUR OWN opinion of his work, I'm sure everyone would be pleased to hear it.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> Phew, I thought the HvK threads could get heated. WF seems to win on that over HvK.


LOL!! really - I'm used to doing battle on the political forums, where things really get heated and nasty...so this is pretty low-temperature...I'll keep jerking this guy's chain until it gets boring...then I thnk I'll go forum musical shopping...this Teutonic adulation stuff has never been my style...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ah, now we are back to it being objective truth as opposed to subjective opinion.
> 
> Then why is Furtwangler more popular than Toscanini? They were exact contemporaries. Toscanini actually even made more recordings.


I don't think you can say that he is more popular. He has become a cult figure among people like you as he represents a bygone age which isn't with us any more. The vast majority of conductors after the war followed Toscanini's approach to a greater or lesser extent so you can get 'Toscanini' but in far better sound. Furtwangler was the product of a bygone age. I doubt whether we will see his like again


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ah, now we are back to it being objective truth


go attend 10 Beethoven symphony concerts.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Quote me where I say Furtangler....


Sorry, you're done.


----------



## 1996D

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Quote me where I say Furtangler is the only true approach to Beethoven. Hell, I just praised several Toscanini recordings 5 minutes ago. I have actually shown myself on my time on this forum to be much more open-minded then you have. You are a broken record of Toscanini-Reiner-Solti. But you accuse me of being the one who dismisses all other approaches than the one I like.
> 
> Do you ever get tired of lying and distorting what people say?


Furtwangler had the better orchestra though, Toscanini was probably closer than what it sounds. The Berlin Philharmonic of the time had amazing players, they played passages with amazing virtuosity. They don't play like that anymore, anywhere.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Sorry, you're done.


LOL, go beat your chest Tarzan. I'll keep on enjoying Furtwangler.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I don't think you can say that he is more popular. He has become a cult figure among people like you as he represents a bygone age which isn't with us any more. The vast majority of conductors after the war followed Toscanini's approach to a greater or lesser extent so you can get 'Toscanini' but in far better sound. Furtwangler was the product of a bygone age. I doubt whether we will see his like again


The word "cult" should be banned on TC. Also the phrase "people like you." I'm sure that Brahmsianhorn does not belong to a cult, and that there are no other people like him.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think this really just comes down to what we value highest in performances. Some of us value technical precision and perfect execution, fidelity to the score, and this is completely valid. Others prefer a more unpredictable, spontaneous, highly personal performance style that can come at the cost of flawless execution. That’s really all there is to it, and that’s all I’ve deduced from this thread. The only thing that bugs me is asserting that one approach is “more correct” or “closer to the composer’s intentions.” We will never, EVER know this. I think people use this claim as an attempt to objectify their preferences.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

To everyone who is throwing around the word “cult”: how does a preference for Furtwangler differ from a preference for any other conductor? Or composer? Or style? Or film? Or ice cream flavor? By that logic I belong to a “Bach cult” because he is my favorite composer and a “vanilla ice cream cult.” We get rather silly conclusions if we follow that logic.


----------



## 1996D

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think this really just comes down to what we value highest in performances. Some of us value technical precision and perfect execution, fidelity to the score, and this is completely valid. Others prefer a more unpredictable, spontaneous, highly personal performance style that can come at the cost of flawless execution. That's really all there is to it, and that's all I've deduced from this thread. The only thing that bugs me is asserting that one approach is "more correct" or "closer to the composer's intentions." We will never, EVER know this. I think people use this claim as an attempt to objectify their preferences.


You can't deny virtuosity though, Paganini and Liszt were the best because of it along with their rubato abilities, and Furtwangler and his Berlin boys were the best in that regard as well.

True professionalism and artistry that is dead and buried today.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> LOL, go beat your chest Tarzan. I'll keep on enjoying Furtwangler.


Go for it....enjoy...


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> To everyone who is throwing around the word "cult": how does a preference for Furtwangler differ from a preference for any other conductor? Or composer? Or style? Or film? Or ice cream flavor? By that logic I belong to a "Bach cult" because he is my favorite composer and a "vanilla ice cream cult." We get rather silly conclusions if we follow that logic.


No there is definitely a cult following of some performers like Glenn Gould. Callas is another. There are people who collect every single disk they have of them and whatever. It is more than just an interest or a favourite conductor or performer. Nothing wrong with that but it's more than just having an interest


----------



## Woodduck

It's probably unnecessary to point out that no one will ever know how Beethoven's music was played in 1820, or whether Beethoven would even have liked the way his contemporaries played it. I love Furtwangler's Beethoven, but don't always want to hear it done his way. Sometimes Nikolaus Harnoncourt and his Chamber Orchestra of Europe, or Roy Goodman and his Hanover Band, hit the spot.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> No there is definitely a cult following of some performers like Glenn Gould. Callas is another. There are people who collect every single disk they have of them and whatever. It is more than just an interest or a favourite conductor or performer. Nothing wrong with that but it's more than just having an interest


I would call that an intense passion or even obsession - nothing wrong with obsessions, I have many of them, we all have them. But as for "cult," let's consult the dictionary:

1. A particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers
3. The physical fitness cult.
4. The object of such devotion.
5. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

"Veneration" means we treat it with reverence like a religious object. I have never heard of anyone bowing down to Furtwangler, or Gould, or Callas, or Karajan, or Toscanini, or whoever. In the arts world, there are a few exceptions that I'm aware of people venerating artistic figures in a religious way, like Shakespeare and Mozart. Maybe there are people out there who see Bach or Wagner as gods. These people are called "weirdos." Having a major interest or obsession with Furtwangler is not "worshipping" him, and the term "cult" implies that it's a small, bizarre sect of people involved in a peculiar religious ritual of Furtdolatry. All I see is people with interests and preferences.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> No there is definitely a cult following of some performers like Glenn Gould. Callas is another. There are people who collect every single disk they have of them and whatever. It is more than just an interest or a favourite conductor or performer. Nothing wrong with that but it's more than just having an interest


Obsessions and compulsions are subjects for psychologists. Having established that they exist - thank you, Doctor A - we can now get back to the art of Furtwangler.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> No there is definitely a cult following of some performers like Glenn Gould. Callas is another. There are people who collect every single disk they have of them and whatever. It is more than just an interest or a favourite conductor or performer. Nothing wrong with that but it's more than just having an interest


You left out Karajan


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I would call that an intense passion or even obsession - nothing wrong with obsessions, I have many of them, we all have them. But as for "cult," let's consult the dictionary:
> 
> 1. A particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
> 2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers
> 3. The physical fitness cult.
> 4. The object of such devotion.
> 5. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
> 
> "Veneration" means we treat it with reverence like a religious object. I have never heard of anyone bowing down to Furtwangler, or Gould, or Callas, or Karajan, or Toscanini, or whoever. In the arts world, there are a few exceptions that I'm aware of people venerating artistic figures in a religious way, like Shakespeare and Mozart. Maybe there are people out there who see Bach or Wagner as gods. These people are called "weirdos." Having a major interest or obsession with Furtwangler is not "worshipping" him, and the term "cult" implies that it's a small, bizarre sect of people involved in a peculiar religious ritual of Furtdolatry. All I see is people with interests and preferences.


I think everybody knows what we mean by a cult when we use the word pretty loosely. I can certainly see here 'an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers' by what people have said, especially one particular person's comments. You are going further by saying these people are 'weirdos' and they're not.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You left out Karajan


For goodness sake Karajan had his cult followers especially in his lifetime and especially in Vienna


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I think everybody knows what we mean by a cult when we use the word pretty loosely. I can certainly see here 'an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers' by what people have said, especially one particular person's comments. You are going further by saying these people are 'weirdos' and they're not.


"Everybody knows" is another phrase that should be banned.

When people accuse others of belonging to a "cult," the connotation is almost always negative. It's a derogatory term used by pompous killjoys assuming a posture of superior sophistication.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> I think everybody knows what we mean by a cult when we use the word pretty loosely. I can certainly see here 'an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers' by what people have said, especially one particular person's comments. You are going further by saying these people are 'weirdos' and they're not.


The term is just too provocative and controversial. And I did not call hardcore admirers (like those who are obsessed with Gould, Karajan, etc. etc.) "weirdos." That was a tongue-in-cheek term reserved for those who actually worship them, of which I am not aware there are any. That is what is meant by "cult." There are things out there that legitimately deserve that term. Fans of musicians do not.

That four-letter word "c word" ought to be censored and treated just like all the other four-letter words that are wisely censored on this forum.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake Karajan had his cult followers especially in his lifetime and especially in Vienna


That's a good thing, it's why the names are known, these people see it live and then the talent is undeniable. Imagine having to find good music if nobody had the balls to say it when they saw objective greatness.

Cowardice leads to mediocrity.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think this really just comes down to what we value highest in performances. Some of us value technical precision and perfect execution, fidelity to the score, and this is completely valid. Others prefer a more unpredictable, spontaneous, highly personal performance style that can come at the cost of flawless execution. That's really all there is to it, and that's all I've deduced from this thread. The only thing that bugs me is asserting that one approach is "more correct" or "closer to the composer's intentions." We will never, EVER know this. I think people use this claim as an attempt to objectify their preferences.


My issue is with the idea that it is "fidelity" to the score vs..."infidelity" to the score??? I just think that is a false choice and false labelling. All interpretation is based on how one thinks the work is supposed to go.

I find Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven more "correct" according to the structure and harmonic language, not to mention the spirit and idea behind the composition. Others find it willfully distorting.

Some find Toscanini's interpretation of Beethoven to be authoritative and exactly according to the composer's wishes, whereas I think he is wholly ignoring critical subtleties and nuance and, more generally, simply not fully partaking in the spiritual, emotional, and philosophical engagement that the music calls for.

(It is a bizarre feeling to type these words knowing they will be again distorted and wholly mischaracterized by a particular poster, claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I have said simply because he disagrees with and feels threatened by my opinion)


----------



## Merl

I've eaten 3 bags of popcorn reading this thread. Will I need more? :lol:


----------



## 1996D

Merl said:


> I've eaten 3 bags of popcorn reading this thread. Will I need more? :lol:


The OP was outrageous, that member keeps making threads about mediocre conductors yet has the heart to question Furtwangler... It deserved the response.

To rank the great conductors is one thing but to say that there is no difference between them and the rest is pretty funny - it's a tremendous level change.


----------



## Gray Bean

1996D said:


> The OP was outrageous, that member keeps making threads about mediocre conductors yet has the heart to question Furtwangler... It deserved the response.
> 
> To rank the great conductors is one thing but to say that there is no difference between them and the rest is pretty funny - it's a tremendous level change.


 I'm a newbie to this site and also a great lover of Furtwangler's art. I was wondering why this thread got so heated!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My issue is with the idea that it is "fidelity" to the score vs..."infidelity" to the score??? I just think that is a false choice and false labelling. All interpretation is based on how one thinks the work is supposed to go.
> 
> I find Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven more "correct" according to the structure and harmonic language, not to mention the spirit and idea behind the composition. Others find it willfully distorting.
> 
> Some find Toscanini's interpretation of Beethoven to be authoritative and exactly according to the composer's wishes, whereas I think he is wholly ignoring critical subtleties and nuance and, more generally, simply not fully partaking in the spiritual, emotional, and philosophical engagement that the music calls for.
> 
> (It is a bizarre feeling to type these words knowing they will be again distorted and wholly mischaracterized by a particular poster, claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I have said simply because he disagrees with and feels threatened by my opinion)


So Toscanini doing what the composer told him to he's not fully partaking of the philosophical power of the music? You mean Beethoven was lacking in philosophical power unless put there by Furtwangler?


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The term is just too provocative and controversial. And I did not call hardcore admirers (like those who are obsessed with Gould, Karajan, etc. etc.) "weirdos." That was a tongue-in-cheek term reserved for those who actually worship them, of which I am not aware there are any. That is what is meant by "cult." There are things out there that legitimately deserve that term. Fans of musicians do not.
> 
> That four-letter word "c word" ought to be censored and treated just like all the other four-letter words that are wisely censored on this forum.


Sorry mate but you useD the word weirdo and I didn't


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> So Toscanini doing what the composer told him to he's not fully partaking of the philosophical power of the music? You mean Beethoven was lacking in philosophical power unless put there by Furtwangler?


Good grief

Simply following instructions is not by itself doing your job as a conductor, any more than simply reading lines is doing your job as an actor


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good grief
> 
> Simply following instructions is not by itself doing your job as a conductor, any more than simply reading lines is doing your job as an actor


You're not suggesting Toscanini merely followed instructions are you? He was the guy who composers like Puccini entrusted the premieres of their works. They rated him even if you don't!


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> You're not suggesting Toscanini merely followed instructions are you? He was the guy who composers like Puccini entrusted the premieres of their works. They rated him even if you don't!


Ah, so you admit that Toscanini had to do _something _beyond following instructions? Good. Now accept that Furtwängler, in views of many, did it better.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You're not suggesting Toscanini merely followed instructions are you? He was the guy who composers like Puccini entrusted the premieres of their works. They rated him even if you don't!


That is why discussions like this usually devolve, but it is actually the fault of Toscanini himself and his disciples.

Of course Toscanini imbued the works he conducted with significance. He was actually quite an emotional conductor. He was not a metronome. He was better than most, especially compared to today's podium sissies. He just didn't go as deep into it as Furtwangler.

But the problem is he CALLED himself an objectivist, interpreting the score exactly as written. This was a bunch of malarkey, no different than Antonin Scalia being a biased agenda-driven conservative on the Supreme Court parading himself as a literalist and originalist. The truth is Toscanini was very much an individual artist - which is a GOOD thing - but he engaged in self-justification by acting as if he was an objective conduit of the written score. The reality is that there was much about the music he simply couldn't grasp, and his answer was to claim that those who could grasp it were "adding" things. Like everyone, including posters on this board, Toscanini had an ego.


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> Ah, so you admit that Toscanini had to do _something _beyond following instructions? Good. Now accept that Furtwängler, in views of many, did it better.


What a perfectly ridiculous statement. They were both very different conductors. In the views of many Toscanini did it better and in the views of many conductors as well as they followed Toscanini rather than Furtwangler. I never quite see this business that you must say one is better than the other. The defensiveness with which you guys try and establish your position seems as though you have a pretty weak argument as far as I'm concerned. Furtwangler belonged to a bygone age and conducting has taken a different path. Who wants to hear the lugubrious accounts of the St Matthew Passion that he dished up that Bach would not have recognised?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is why discussions like this usually devolve, but it is actually the fault of Toscanini himself and his disciples.
> 
> Of course Toscanini imbued the works he conducted with significance. He was actually quite an emotional conductor. He was not a metronome. He was better than most, especially compared to today's podium sissies. He just didn't go as deep into it as Furtwangler.
> 
> But the problem is he CALLED himself an objectivist, interpreting the score exactly as written. This was a bunch of malarkey, no different than Antonin Scalia being a biased agenda-driven conservative on the Supreme Court parading himself as a literalist and originalist. The truth is Toscanini was very much an individual artist - which is a GOOD thing - but he engaged in self-justification by acting as if he was an objective conduit of the written score. The reality is that there was much about the music he simply couldn't grasp, and his answer was to claim that those who could grasp it were "adding" things. Like everyone, including posters on this board, Toscanini had an ego.


You get more and more defensive as you go on calling today's conductors 'podium sissies'. As I say this sort of thing is just the result of a weak argument. There are some excellent conductors around today but as I say the age of the podium tyrant has gone. But you guys like to live in a dream world where everything old is gold and everything new cannot be true


----------



## Merl

Gray Bean said:


> I'm a newbie to this site and also a great lover of Furtwangler's art. I was wondering why this thread got so heated!


Wait till the words Wagner and nazi are used in the same sentence. Then you'll see a real heated argument here.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> What a perfectly ridiculous statement. They were both very different conductors. In the views of many Toscanini did it better and in the views of many conductors as well as they followed Toscanini rather than Furtwangler. I never quite see this business that you must say one is better than the other. The defensiveness with which you guys try and establish your position seems as though you have a pretty weak argument as far as I'm concerned. Furtwangler belonged to a bygone age and conducting has taken a different path. Who wants to hear the lugubrious accounts of the St Matthew Passion that he dished up that Bach would not have recognised?


Is it possible for you to stop using terms like "you guys?" I am an individual poster on this forum.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Is it possible for you to stop using terms like "you guys?" I am an individual poster on this forum.


What is your problem with it? Would 'sir' be better. I'm an elderly man myself but I'm used to talking to young people


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> To everyone who is throwing around the word "cult": how does a preference for Furtwangler differ from a preference for any other conductor? Or composer? Or style? Or film? Or ice cream flavor? By that logic I belong to a "Bach cult" because he is my favorite composer and a "vanilla ice cream cult." We get rather silly conclusions if we follow that logic.


Easy for me to agree with this. The thing with Furtwängler is that pretty many musicians and CM enthusiasts seem to have had the experience that *Heck148* described in an earlier post concerning himself, where you get turned on to Furtwängler and have the deep "Aha, now I see!" feeling, often egged on by friends or role models. That happened to me, but I eventually developed a perspective in which I actually prefer the readings of the German Romantic repertoire of the literalists, roughly speaking, and not just for the sound quality of the modern recordings. Yet I retain an admiration, nay, awe, of Furtwängler that can lead me to get carried away and make silly statements like, "Furtwängler led more definitive recordings of the German repertoire than any other conductor," as I unfortunately did in an earlier post in this thread, when in fact I don't even know what I mean by a definitive recording or interpretation. It's like a being in the haze of a Furtwängler hangover. But I do seriously contend that anyone interested in the German Romantic repertoire, musicians and CM enthusiasts alike, really need to take heed of Furtwängler in order to understand more about the possibilities of this kind of music. Then go and listen to the recordings you prefer.


----------



## Fabulin

DavidA said:


> What a perfectly ridiculous statement.


What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> What is your problem with it? Would 'sir' be better. I'm an elderly man myself but I'm used to talking to young people


Because we do not all speak for each other. Grouping us together is demeaning and inaccurate.


----------



## DavidA

Simplicissimus said:


> Easy for me to agree with this. The thing with Furtwängler is that pretty many musicians and CM enthusiasts seem to have had the experience that *Heck148* described in an earlier post concerning himself, where you get turned on to Furtwängler and have the deep "Aha, now I see!" feeling, often egged on by friends or role models. That happened to me, but I eventually developed a perspective in which I actually prefer the readings of the German Romantic repertoire of the literalists, roughly speaking, and not just for the sound quality of the modern recordings. Yet I retain an admiration, nay, awe, of Furtwängler that can lead me to get carried away and make silly statements like, "Furtwängler led more definitive recordings of the German repertoire than any other conductor," as I unfortunately did in an earlier post in this thread, when in fact I don't even know what I mean by a definitive recording or interpretation. It's like a being in the haze of a Furtwängler hangover. But I do seriously contend that anyone interested in the German Romantic repertoire, musicians and CM enthusiasts alike, really need to take heed of Furtwängler in order to understand more about the possibilities of this kind of music. Then go and listen to the recordings you prefer.


The word 'cult' comes in when people make out that unless you go crazy over a certain conductor or artist you are somehow an inferior or incomplete human being. You are missing something that only the 'initiated' can understand. No, as long as there is musical competence and excellence, it just comes down to a matter of personal preferences. Anything else is the Emperor's New Clothes.


----------



## NLAdriaan

The mind is an interesting thing. 

It is significant that any discussion/thread about the three controversial German(ic) musical gladiators: Wagner, Furtwangler and Karajan, immediately polarizes into a firestorm. The pros are proactively exaggerating in calling any future critics 'haters', but they keep starting off new threads all the time, as if they invite their enemies to the arena, ready to start a fight. There are always times and places were such behavior can be noticed. And it is at least interesting to think about it if the admiration only concerns the music or if there are other ideas that contribute to the admiration. 

The absolutism that comes with it, only exists with these guys (sorry, gentlemen). In a Herbie/Lenny thread, Karajan will be aggressively defended while critical remarks on Lenny just remain up in the air. The same with Furtwangler/Toscanini. Or Wagner/Mahler.

It is at least of interest to see why this is the case. It can't only be the music, as there are too many outstanding alternatives. The immediate denial of any non-musical associations is just a simplification, as it happens all the time and only with such outright intensity with these three.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> The word 'cult' comes in when people make out that unless you go crazy over a certain conductor or artist you are somehow an inferior or incomplete human being. You are missing something that only the 'initiated' can understand. No, as long as there is musical competence and excellence, it just comes down to a matter of personal preferences. Anything else is the Emperor's New Clothes.


How grossly tone deaf. The word "cult" is almost always a term of ridicule. It "comes in" (it doesn't walk in by itself, by the way) when someone wants to pose as a person of superior judgment and maturity and impute an imagined excess of enthusiasm to someone else. There may be some justification in applying it figuratively to some really outlandish or irrational behavior. It has no application to the subject at hand. There is no "Furtwangler cult."


----------



## Eclectic Al

NLAdriaan said:


> The mind is an interesting thing.
> 
> It is significant that any discussion/thread about the three controversial German(ic) musical gladiators: Wagner, Furtwangler and Karajan, immediately polarizes into a firestorm. The pros are proactively exaggerating in calling any future critics 'haters', but they keep starting off new threads all the time, as if they invite their enemies to the arena, ready to start a fight. There are always times and places were such behavior can be noticed. And it is at least interesting to think about it if the admiration only concerns the music or if there are other ideas that contribute to the admiration.
> 
> The absolutism that comes with it, only exists with these guys (sorry, gentlemen). In a Herbie/Lenny thread, Karajan will be aggressively defended while critical remarks on Lenny just remain up in the air. The same with Furtwangler/Toscanini. Or Wagner/Mahler.
> 
> It is at least of interest to see why this is the case. It can't only be the music, as there are too many outstanding alternatives. The immediate denial of any non-musical associations is just a simplification, as it happens all the time and only with such outright intensity with these three.


The thing that makes me defend someone's work aggressively is when I am argued to be deficient for liking their work. That happens with HvK, and recently it happened with Murray Perahia in another thread on this site. In both cases the argument was that there was a cultivation of superficial beauty at the expense of depth, and in the interests of financial reward. I think it is a matter of taste, and no more. I certainly don't see that thinking I like quite a few Murray Perahia recordings and also liking quite a few HvK recordings links me somehow to veiled connections with political issues in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. I doubt that Mr Perahia is that way inclined! The connection escapes me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> The word 'cult' comes in when people make out that unless you go crazy over a certain conductor or artist you are somehow an inferior or incomplete human being. You are missing something that only the 'initiated' can understand..


Is anybody saying this? That is a total straw man.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Is anybody saying this? That is a total straw man.


The last few pages of this thread have been all about straw men. Some people apparently need them to sleep at night.

The irony is that for the most part no one is faulting anyone for not responding to Furtwangler. It's the opposite. If you like Furtwangler then you are a prude, part of a cult, a believer in only one true way...did I leave anything out?


----------



## Fabulin

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The last few pages of this thread have been all about straw men. Some people apparently need them to sleep at night.
> 
> The irony is that for the most part no one is faulting anyone for not responding to Furtwangler. It's the opposite. If you like Furtwangler then you are a prude, part of a cult, a believer in only one true way...did I leave anything out?


Yes. The more general irony (considering the nature of charges) of a zealous attack out of nowhere on those who came to tell why do they like Furtwängler in a thread about why is he liked.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

If I were to point to one example of Furtwangler’s conducting that has the highest potential to help people appreciate what he was all about, and which exemplifies the strong aesthetic/emotional reaction that his admirers often have to him, it would be the first movement of Brahms’s 4th symphony in the wartime recording. Listen through the dim sound and try to hear the entire thing - it’s only about 12 minutes. Observe how he starts out at a rather hesitant, limping pace; stretching and pulling the evolving threads of melody like clay in his hands. Then, as the movement progresses and the music becomes more complex, there is a gradual unleashing of momentum, often hampered by startling grinds to a halt as if the music is incapable of really taking off. Then we reach the coda which hurls at a breakneck pace into the depths of the abyss and quite literally sounds like the orchestra has been possessed. I wouldn’t be surprised to see sparks shoot from the bows, reeds, and drumsticks in concert. He develops a narrative for the movement, inspires his vision in the players, and tells a true story. I think if you listen with an open mind and imagine the kind of story that Furtwangler might be trying to tell, you will get at least something out of it.


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If I were to point to one example of Furtwangler's conducting that has the highest potential to help people appreciate what he was all about, and which exemplifies the strong aesthetic/emotional reaction that his admirers often have to him, it would be the first movement of Brahms's 4th symphony in the wartime recording. Listen through the dim sound and try to hear the entire thing - it's only about 12 minutes. Observe how he starts out at a rather hesitant, limping pace; stretching and pulling the evolving threads of melody like clay in his hands. Then, as the movement progresses and the music becomes more complex, there is a gradual unleashing of momentum, often hampered by startling grinds to a halt as if the music is incapable of really taking off. Then we reach the coda which hurls at a breakneck pace into the depths of the abyss and quite literally sounds like the orchestra has been possessed. I wouldn't be surprised to see sparks shoot from the bows, reeds, and drumsticks in concert. He develops a narrative for the movement, inspires his vision in the players, and tells a true story. I think if you listen with an open mind and imagine the kind of story that Furtwangler might be trying to tell, you will get at least something out of it.


 "He develops a narrative for the movement, inspires his vision in the players, and tells a true story."

That says it. Notes were never just sounds. There was always something behind them; they always told a story with a beginning, a middle and an end, the end was always in view, and everything built up to it. When I first heard and saw him conduct the last movement of Brahms' 4th in a film clip, the level of intensity to which he brought the orchestra left me almost in shock.


----------



## arpeggio

*Whose the best??????????????*



Heck148 said:


> If you want to hail Furtwangler as the greatest interpreter of Beethoven, and Germanic music, fine....that is certainly your choice, your privilege. to each his own.
> but, *do not try to assert that this is some sort of universal truth, some indisputable dogma that must be observed and agreed to by all. It is your opinion, plain and simple.*
> for better or worse, the musical world has, at present, moved away from that aesthetic approach. This is undeniable.
> your implication that present day conductors who do not subscribe to the WF ideal are somehow inferior, incompetent, unknowledgeable, whatever, is again, your opinion...Don't purchase their recordings....enjoy your Furtwangler....I'll enjoy my favorites with equal fervor and enthusiasm.


I agree with Heck148.

I have learned that it is impossible to state that Johnson was the greatest composer of music in 1862 or Jackson does the best job of conducting measure 69 of the "Second Movement" of Beethoven's _Fifth_.

There have been members who have been trying to make this point for years yet it seems as if we are banging our heads on a brick wall. I have had many friends, whose knowledge is far superior to mine, who have left this forum out of frustration.

Although I still am a member and follow some threads, I have given up participating in 99% of the discussions.

Who is the greatest Beethoven conductor? I have no idea and I doubt that anyone here can objectively answer that question.

As a band junkie in my opinion, and it is just an opinion not an objective fact, Fennell is the best band conductor. That does not mean he is a ten and all the other accomplished band conductors are five's. In spite of my opinion he is one of many fine band conductors.

If members want to spend their time discussing who is the best conductor of whatever is, so be it.

I pass.


----------



## Bigbang

I have not read the last two days of posts. Really this is getting absurd but I wanted to make one comment. I see neither side nor not, that is not the issue. Furtwangler came from a different time and after WW2, there came an opportunity to use scholarship to reexamine Beethoven the composer. So they took him apart and look into how his symphonies were edited over time and and tried to go back to a more original starting point. So naturally the "literalist" approach took hold and this may be still a concern for many to stay on the path due to economics. It is not easy to simply branch off on uncharted territory if no backing for it. Even Harnoncourt was still trying to redo Beethoven but the question is what works for me. Would Beethoven go into a rage if he heard Furtwangler? Or Toscanini? And, the issue that the music heard cannot be fully realized in the real world. 

But I have not doubt about this: A conductor is the medium: the vessel to bring the music to life, not to mention the orchestra (why does the conductor give his applause to his/her players). 

So even if one is trying to enforce some imaginary idea that Beethoven has this tempo marking/metronome, and indications for how is should be expressed, Beethoven knew he could not convey his intentions as he knew as how can he? If a writer write a book, can he get inside every person head as they read the words of their book? Can he control their thoughts? Are they not allowed to use their background to engage the book in their style. 

So I do not think any style is forever as we tire of sameness then back to something else. I think it is a serious mistake to think of music as outside of us, out there. We are one in each generation: Conductor/orchestra and the audience and then a new generation will come together and the conductor and audience will recreate the music again for this new period. As it already has happened since Beethoven. Sorry I have not read post but I feel strongly about this point.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Is anybody saying this? That is a total straw man.


Definitely been implied by some posts. Of course it will be denied by those posters of course.

But just get back to the music. I put on Furty's Beethoven 3rd last night and again was less than overwhelmed by it. The first movement lacked fire - it was not allegro con brio by a long chalk. The funeral march was very slow indeed - more akin to Bruckner than Beethoven - but came off in its way. The third movement was frankly tame when it should have been fiery. I went to bed then but didn't honestly see what everyone is raving about. This is not a straw man - it is Furty with the VPO btw. No doubt someone will come back and say I am not one of the initiated!


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Definitely been implied by some posts. Of course it will be denied by those posters of course.
> 
> But just get back to the music. I put on Furty's Beethoven 3rd last night and again was less than overwhelmed by it. The first movement lacked fire - it was not allegro con brio by a long chalk. The funeral march was very slow indeed - more akin to Bruckner than Beethoven - but came off in its way. The third movement was frankly tame when it should have been fiery. I went to bed then but didn't honestly see what everyone is raving about. This is not a straw man - it is Furty with the VPO btw. No doubt someone will come back and say I am not one of the initiated!


He makes the curious decision to go slow in the opening movement, not one conductor will have the best of everything.

His Leonore no.3 is amazing though, extremely explosive; wished he used some of that fire for the Eroica.


----------



## millionrainbows

Furtwangler: He's very good when you listen to him. I'm listening to his Brahms Fourth/Berlin 1943, and it's very good.











A viewer comment: "This performance is simply insane. The passion, the unforced, organic intensity of Furtwangler's style is unsurpassed. One of the finest recordings of classical music I've heard. Thanks for uploading this!"


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Furtwangler: *He's very good when you listen to him.* I'm listening to his Brahms Fourth/Berlin 1943, and it's very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A viewer comment: "This performance is simply insane. The passion, the unforced, organic intensity of Furtwangler's style is unsurpassed. One of the finest recordings of classical music I've heard. Thanks for uploading this!"


Question: what do you do other than listen to him? :lol:


----------



## Gray Bean

This performance expresses the terror of the day...Berlin in 1943. Absolutely withering in it’s intensity. Thanks for posting.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Question: what do you do other than listen to him? :lol:


I talk to him in midnight seances by candlelight.


----------



## millionrainbows

Gray Bean said:


> This performance expresses the terror of the day...Berlin in 1943. Absolutely withering in it's intensity. Thanks for posting.


I'm impressed by the quality of the orchestra. The intonation is spot-on. There are some tutti horn parts in there that could very easily have been botched, but sound fine. Also, I'm surprised at the good fidelity. I wonder, was this a studio recording?


----------



## Gray Bean

millionrainbows said:


> I'm impressed by the quality of the orchestra. The intonation is spot-on. There are some tutti horn parts in there that could very easily have been botched, but sound fine. Also, I'm surprised at the good fidelity. I wonder, was this a studio recording?


Recorded live in concert in June 1943. You can hear the audience at times. And yes, the Berlin Philharmonic is certainly impressive here, playing as if their lives depended on it. My heavens, listen to the end of the 2nd movement...astounding!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Definitely been* implied* by some posts. Of course it will be denied by those posters of course.


People hear what they want to hear. I think certain people are so insecure that when confronted by an opinion contrary to their own that they imagine the "offender" to be putting them down, insulting them, declaring their own opinion to be definitive when in fact the "offender" is making it clear that it is his opinion and not some sort of immutable truth. Such a thing is nonsensical in art, where the whole point is subjective enjoyment.

When I can quote back to a poster demonstrating I am saying literally the exact opposite of his imaginings of what I am saying, that is when you can plainly see there is insecure, defensive projection going on.

What's most important is not only that we are all entitled to our opinions but that everyone has choice and exposure to explore and listen as they wish. I made it very clear and have done so in the past that I expose myself to a wide variety of styles. I want to learn everything I can in my short time on this earth. I may not like them all, but I will listen and encourage others to do so. I also stated that I like several of Toscanini's Beethoven recordings, just not as much as Furtwangler's, but I wish there were more Toscanini's today. I'd surely attend their concerts!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Most seem to prefer the more famous 1943 Brahms 4th, but IMO he was even more intense in this 1949 Wiesbaden concert, which boasts more clear sound. Just listen to the graduation of dynamics in the first movement from the beginning to the end. And the finale is the most intense I have heard. It's a shame this isn't better known/circulated as it comes with a Mozart 40 from the same concert that is likewise my favorite version.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People hear what they want to hear. I think certain people are so insecure that when confronted by an opinion contrary to their own that they imagine the "offender" to be putting them down, insulting them, declaring their own opinion to be definitive when in fact the "offender" is making it clear that it is his opinion and not some sort of immutable truth. Such a thing is nonsensical in art, where the whole point is subjective enjoyment.
> 
> When I can quote back to a poster demonstrating I am saying literally the exact opposite of his imaginings of what I am saying, that is when you can plainly see there is insecure, defensive projection going on.
> 
> What's most important is not only that we are all entitled to our opinions but that everyone has choice and exposure to explore and listen as they wish. I made it very clear and have done so in the past that I expose myself to a wide variety of styles. I want to learn everything I can in my short time on this earth. I may not like them all, but I will listen and encourage others to do so. I also stated that I like several of Toscanini's Beethoven recordings, just not as much as Furtwangler's, but I wish there were more Toscanini's today. I'd surely attend their concerts!
> 
> But a big part of this is also just simply posters with big egos wanting to "win." So Heck yesterday engaged in the tried and true method of purposefully misstating my posts in order to thereby "refute" them and declare himself the "victor." This is the sort of thing that derails a thread where people are simply trying to express - respectfully - their opinions.
> 
> _Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes *any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side*. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument. _


Thanks for proving my point!


----------



## Gray Bean

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Most seem to prefer the more famous 1943 Brahms 4th, but IMO he was even more intense in this 1949 Wiesbaden concert, which boasts more clear sound. Just listen to the graduation of dynamics in the first movement from the beginning to the end. And the finale is the most intense I have heard. It's a shame this isn't better known/circulated as it comes with a Mozart 40 from the same concert that is likewise my favorite version.


Absolutely hair-raising! I love it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> But just get back to the music. I put on Furty's Beethoven 3rd last night and again was less than overwhelmed by it. The first movement lacked fire - it was not allegro con brio by a long chalk. The funeral march was very slow indeed - more akin to Bruckner than Beethoven - but came off in its way. The third movement was frankly tame when it should have been fiery. I went to bed then but didn't honestly see what everyone is raving about. This is not a straw man - it is Furty with the VPO btw. No doubt someone will come back and say I am not one of the initiated!


Do you mean the wartime 1944 VPO or the studio 1952 EMI VPO? The studio EMI is not his best by any stretch. The basic idea is there, but it is tired sounding. The 1944 VPO is his best interpretation, very intense and concentrated, my favorite Eroica of all.

But especially for Furt newbies I always recommend the live 12/8/52 BPO. The sound is fantastic, one of the few that really convey the powerful BPO sound Furt cultivated throughout his career. (You have to click the link and hear it on YouTube. It won't play on this thread)






In addition to the above, I also recommend for excellent combination of interpretation and sound the 5/23/54 5th. It is a little slower than his previous recordings but very powerfully stated. The transition between the scherzo and finale is overwhelming.






And also his 1951 NDR Brahms 1st. I remember listening to this in Tower Records in 1996 and feeling that at last I had found a Brahms 1st that sounded the way I felt the work should go. This really helped begin my appreciation for Furtwangler.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Am I in the right place?
I heard music playing.
Sounds like a recording by Furtwängler, my favorite conductor.*


----------



## Enthusiast

This thread has grown a lot since I last visited it. I must confess that I am amazed that quite a few dislike Furtwangler's conducting and (most amazing of all) do so with a passion. I love a lot of Celibidache's Munich work but I know that what he does will not be to everyone's taste. With Furtwangler, though, it often seems self-evident that we are listening to something very very special.

There are out there many recordings of his that are quite ordinary - and some of them have received more marketing than the better ones - but there are also many that are just so good that it is impossible to play them next to almost any other recording of the same work without finding the others to be lacking something important. That's how it sounds to me.

Some of those who disagree seem to think his style is "out of date" - how can greatness go out of date? - or that the recordings are of poor quality. I don't find him out of date at all - as I said earlier I find many of his recordings of central German repertoire to be revelatory ... and therefore fresh. No-one sounds like him. The recordings are old but many of the best performances (including many of those made during the war) sound surprisingly good to me. Then there is the comparison with Toscanini - another conductor I like a lot - but this is one of the few comparisons where Toscanini loses out (IMO).

I must say that I am not sure I would or could understand Beethoven and Bruckner as well as I do if I had not heard Furtwangler do them. He incorporates so much and _*seems often to live inside the music*_. Even the great Karajan can often seem narrow minded and monomaniacal in comparison.


----------



## Flamme

SONNET CLV said:


> View attachment 136263
> 
> 
> *Am I in the right place?
> I heard music playing.
> Sounds like a recording by Furtwängler, my favorite conductor.*


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> This thread has grown a lot since I last visited it. I must confess that I am amazed that quite a few dislike Furtwangler's conducting and (most amazing of all) do so with a passion.


I dont think there's been any more or less dislike expressed in this thread than any other thread about famous conductors. Threads on Bernstein, Karajan, Barbirolli, Celi etc have generated an equal amount of like / dislike it's just argued with greater ferocity and passion by some individuals on here.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I've listened to a lot of the samples posted in this thread, and some others, and I think I got his style pretty firmly down in my head. He makes the music go like a roller coaster. Slower than usual and then accelerates to faster than normal and vice versa. Some more sudden turns along the way until to the end. The dynamics usually go hand in hand with the speed changes. I can say with the faster parts, I've heard versions that imbue a lot more nuance, while the slower parts do once in a while add something I don't recall hearing in the music before. My admiration is more for the orchestra to meet those technical challenges than his interpretation. The tempo and dynamics are very finely graduated. The loud accented parts still feel too heavy and mechanical to me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I dont think there's been any more or less dislike expressed in this thread than any other thread about famous conductors. Threads on Bernstein, Karajan, Barbirolli, Celi etc have generated an equal amount of like / dislike *it's just argued with greater ferocity and passion by some individuals on here.*


The difference is in expressing simple dislike/reasoned critique vs seeming to take personal offense that anyone could prefer conductor X to conductor Y, to the point of saying you must think your opinion is universal truth and that conductor X is the only conductor worth listening to...that sort of nonsense.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> Some of those who disagree seem to think his style is "out of date" - how can greatness go out of date? - or that the recordings are of poor quality. I don't find him out of date at all - as I said earlier I find many of his recordings of central German repertoire to be revelatory ... and therefore fresh. No-one sounds like him. The recordings are old but many of the best performances (including many of those made during the war) sound surprisingly good to me. Then there is the comparison with Toscanini - another conductor I like a lot - but this is one of the few comparisons where Toscanini loses out (IMO).


I made the point to said poster that if Furtwangler's style is out of date, could not the same be then said about the repertoire he's conducting, and would not at the very least his style be more idiomatic and illuminating for said works as opposed to a style reflecting 20th century taste, and said poster answered with his usual defensive ravings that I am pretending to have the key to universal truth and who am I to impose my tastes on others....anything to deflect from the topic at hand and his logical contradictions.

My response to Heck is why is it not more pompous of you to claim that 20th century style improved the works of the past?



Enthusiast said:


> I must say that I am not sure I would or could understand Beethoven and Bruckner as well as I do if I had not heard Furtwangler do them. He incorporates so much and _*seems often to live inside the music*_. Even the great Karajan can often seem narrow minded and monomaniacal in comparison.


Perhaps the most important point made on this thread. Furtwangler possessed insights into German Romantic repertoire that are invaluable and that you cannot find anywhere else. In my view, claiming that Furtwangler had no special insight into Beethoven is like claiming that Einstein knew nothing about physics.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> I've listened to a lot of the samples posted in this thread, and some others, and I think I got his style pretty firmly down in my head. He makes the music go like a roller coaster. Slower than usual and then accelerates to faster than normal and vice versa. Some more sudden turns along the way until to the end. The dynamics usually go hand in hand with the speed changes. I can say with the faster parts, I've heard versions that imbue a lot more nuance, while the slower parts do once in a while add something I don't recall hearing in the music before. My admiration is more for the orchestra to meet those technical challenges than his interpretation. The tempo and dynamics are very finely graduated. *The loud accented parts still feel too heavy and mechanical to me.*


Depends on the piece, his Brahms op. 83 is really special, the opposite of that last sentence.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Phil loves classical said:


> The loud accented parts still feel too heavy and *mechanica*l to me.


Huh. That may be the first time I've ever heard Furtwangler described that way before.


----------



## 1996D

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Huh. That may be the first time I've ever heard Furtwangler described that way before.


At times he is.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> This thread has grown a lot since I last visited it. I must confess that I am amazed that quite a few dislike Furtwangler's conducting and (most amazing of all) do so with a passion. I love a lot of Celibidache's Munich work but I know that what he does will not be to everyone's taste. *With Furtwangler, though, it often seems self-evident that we are listening to something very very special. *
> 
> There are out there many recordings of his that are quite ordinary - and some of them have received more marketing than the better ones - but there are also many that are just so good that it is impossible to play them next to almost any other recording of the same work without finding the others to be lacking something important. That's how it sounds to me.
> 
> Some of those who disagree seem to think his style is "out of date" - how can greatness go out of date? - or that the recordings are of poor quality. I don't find him out of date at all - as I said earlier I find many of his recordings of central German repertoire to be revelatory ... and therefore fresh. No-one sounds like him. The recordings are old but many of the best performances (including many of those made during the war) sound surprisingly good to me. Then there is the comparison with Toscanini - another conductor I like a lot - but this is one of the few comparisons where Toscanini loses out (IMO).
> 
> *I must say that I am not sure I would or could understand Beethoven and Bruckner as well as I do if I had not heard Furtwangler do them.* He incorporates so much and _*seems often to live inside the music*_. Even the great Karajan can often seem narrow minded and monomaniacal in comparison.


Yes but you are making subjective judgments as though they are objective. It is not 'self-evident' - except to the initiates of course! - and many would deem your 'understanding' of Beethoven through Furtwangler to be wrong headed as they feel he was part of a romantic movement which may well have distorted Beethoven's intentions. Don't get me wrong - I believe Furty was a great conductor of certain music (Wagner a speciality) but I doubt whether you are hearing Beethoven's Beethoven through his interpretations.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The difference is in expressing simple dislike/reasoned critique vs seeming to take personal offense that anyone could prefer conductor X to conductor Y, to the point of saying you must think your opinion is universal truth and that *conductor X is the only conductor worth listening to*...that sort of nonsense.


I wish then you wouldn't go rubbishing so much of what goes on today in your attempt to romanticise your heroes.


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> Yes but you are making subjective judgments as though they are objective. It is not 'self-evident' - except to the initiates of course! - and many would deem your 'understanding' of Beethoven through Furtwangler to be wrong headed as they feel he was part of a romantic movement which may well have distorted Beethoven's intentions. Don't get me wrong - I believe Furty was a great conductor of certain music (Wagner a speciality) but *I doubt whether you are hearing Beethoven's Beethoven through his interpretations*.


You have Brahmsianhorn's words for it. He seems particularly well informed:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I find Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven more "correct" according to the structure and harmonic language, not to mention the spirit and idea behind the composition.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Yes but you are making subjective judgments as though they are objective. It is not 'self-evident' - except to the initiates of course! - and many would deem your 'understanding' of Beethoven through Furtwangler to be wrong headed as they feel he was part of a romantic movement which may well have distorted Beethoven's intentions. Don't get me wrong - I believe Furty was a great conductor of certain music (Wagner a speciality) but I doubt whether you are hearing Beethoven's Beethoven through his interpretations.


Why is it that no one can express opinions contrary to yours without your getting defensive and accusing them of conflating opinion with fact? It seems self evident to me that the sky is blue. Maybe you think it's red. So what? If you disagree, just say so. Come off it with the "initiates" drama!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I wish then you wouldn't go rubbishing so much of what goes on today in your attempt to romanticise your heroes.


I have a right to my opinion, and you have a right to yours. The difference is I don't go around getting butthurt over a difference of opinion and policing you on which ones you can and cannot express.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> You have Brahmsianhorn's words for it. He seems particularly well informed:


It would be nice if you could quote my entire post, however, which goes on to say that what I hear as "correct" differs from what someone else may hear as "correct."


----------



## Gray Bean

This thread has become beyond ridiculous. Time to move on.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have a right to my opinion, and you have a right to yours. The difference is I don't go around getting butthurt over a difference of opinion and policing you on which ones you can and cannot express.


Funny, I thought you did that very well indeed!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is it that no one can express opinions contrary to yours without your getting defensive and accusing them of conflating opinion with fact? It seems self evident to me that the sky is blue. Maybe you think it's red. So what? If you disagree, just say so. Come off it with the "initiates" drama!


You constantly conflate opinion with fact in the way you express yourself. Why can't you just see it? :lol:


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...what I hear as "correct" differs from what someone else may hear as "correct."


You are certainly proving my point.


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> You constantly conflate opinion with fact in the way you express yourself. Why can't you just see it? :lol:


Posts like this one make me nostalgic for listening to LP's - it's like a broken record.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> This thread has become beyond ridiculous. Time to move on.


To the extent that I have fed the trolls, I apologize. Their whole agenda is to get the thread off topic.

It should be really simple: Talk about Wilhelm Furtwangler, whether you like him, don't like him, sometimes like him, etc.

The problem is when posts start focusing on attacking posters themselves instead of the topic at hand.


----------



## mmsbls

We have removed a number of posts with negative personal comments. Please refrain from such posts and use PMs if you wish to make such points. Personal spats are annoying to other members so please focus on content and not other members.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I find Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven more "correct" according to the structure and harmonic language, not to mention the spirit and idea behind the composition. Others find it willfully distorting.
> 
> Some find Toscanini's interpretation of Beethoven to be authoritative and exactly according to the composer's wishes, whereas I think he is wholly ignoring critical subtleties and nuance and, more generally, simply not fully partaking in the spiritual, emotional, and philosophical engagement that the music calls for.
> 
> (It is a bizarre feeling to type these words knowing they will be again distorted and wholly mischaracterized by a particular poster, claiming I am saying the exact opposite of what I have said simply because he disagrees with and feels threatened by my opinion)





DavidA said:


> Yes but you are making subjective judgments as though they are objective. It is not 'self-evident' - except to the initiates of course! - and many would deem your 'understanding' of Beethoven through Furtwangler to be wrong headed as they feel he was part of a romantic movement which may well have distorted Beethoven's intentions. Don't get me wrong - I believe Furty was a great conductor of certain music (Wagner a speciality) but I doubt whether you are hearing Beethoven's Beethoven through his interpretations.


The above demonstrates exactly why this thread has me questioning my sanity.

I express an opinion. I state as respectfully as I can that there is another side to my opinion. I am then lectured that my opinion is stated as objective fact and told about the other side, stated exactly the way I stated in my own post.

So what the heck (no pun intended) are we disagreeing about?

Not to mention the utter comedy of my predicting what would happen at the end of my post.


----------



## Gray Bean

So....can I ask a Furtwangler related question? I have tons of the LP’s. On CD I have the DG Complete box, the EMI complete box and the 107 cd Furtwangler Legacy box. Are there any indispensable CD issues that I should add to these?


----------



## Woodduck

Gray Bean said:


> So....can I ask a Furtwangler related question?


Of course not! How could you possibly think that that would be appropriate here?


----------



## Gray Bean

Woodduck said:


> Of course not! How could you possibly think that that would be appropriate here?


I don't know what I was thinking!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> So....can I ask a Furtwangler related question? I have tons of the LP's. On CD I have the DG Complete box, the EMI complete box and the 107 cd Furtwangler Legacy box. Are there any indispensable CD issues that I should add to these?


YES!!!

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 (1944) and No. 9 (1942)* - I'll start with the most obvious, two of the greatest Beethoven recordings in existence. They are best heard on Tahra, but the below set gives you more value and is easier to find.










*Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 (12/8/52), Symphonies Nos. 5 & 6 (5/25/47 and 5/23/54), Schubert, Symphonies Nos. 8 & 9 (1953), Strauss, Don Juan (1954)* - If the new DG/Decca set isn't the greatest gold mine of Furt recordings, then surely this Audite set is. The 1947 and 1954 5th and 6th are both his top 2 recordings for each work IMO. I linked the 1954 5th this morning. I also linked the 12/8/52 Eroica. Excellent sound, one of the best for demonstrating Furt's BPO sound. Same can be said for his wonderful 1954 Don Juan, and for my money the 1953 Schubert recordings are the best he left us, certainly the best sounding live recordings.










*Brahms, Symphony No. 1 (1951, NDR)* - The best recorded version of this symphony IMO. I linked it a couple of pages ago. This is the same transfer pictured below, Tahra. You can, however, get it on the Music & Arts Brahms/Furt box set. This comes with the intense wartime 4th linked earlier. The transfer of the 1951 1st is not quite as good as Tahra, but you get more bang for your buck. The thing is that the wartime 4th is hard to find outside of the M&A boxset, so that could very well make the decision for you.










*Brahms, Symphony No. 4 (1949, BPO in Wiesbaden)* - Again Tahra, generally the gold standard for Furt transfers. This is the same Brahms 4th I linked earlier today. It is also paired with what IMO is an unmatched Mozart 40th, also missing from the other boxes. I wonder why the 107-CD legacy box went with the 1950 VPO Salzburg 4th. This is the most tame I have heard of his recorded performances (Listening on YouTube right now...what were they thinking?). The sound is very clear, however. And of course it is still a very good performance.










*Bruckner, Symphony No. 7 (5/1/51)* - Opinions are split on his three versions, but this is my favorite. It comes across as his most heartfelt even if not as well-recorded as the 1949 EMI. Best heard in the Tahra shown below or the Music & Arts. The 107-CD set features the DG version, recorded in 1951.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahmsianhorn said:


>


Oh, that hair! I always wondered how he could be such a ladies' man.


----------



## Gray Bean

Many thanks! I do have the Audite RIAS box set. The sound is very good in that set. Love the Eroica in this box.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> So....can I ask a Furtwangler related question? I have tons of the LP's. On CD I have the DG Complete box, the EMI complete box and the 107 cd Furtwangler Legacy box. Are there any indispensable CD issues that I should add to these?


Part deux...

*Wagner, Die Walkure, Gotterdammerung excerpts (1937, Covent Garden)* - The Legacy box includes some, but not all of these excerpts. They are justifiably legendary, although poorly recorded. It kills me that we don't have the complete Ring from this cycle.










*Brahms, Requiem (1947, Schwarzkopf/Hotter/Lucerne)* - This is my favorite Brahms Requiem, despite the atrocious sound. The 1948 Stockholm is much better recorded, but this one is a really special interpretation. I had the pleasure of knowing someone who attended the concert in person. She said she never forgot Furt's "long, spidery arms" and immediately went home and tried to emulate Schwarzkopf's "golden tones." Incidentally, her husband was a Lucerne native who studied conducting under both Toscanini and Furtwangler. She said, "He admired Toscanini, but he adored Furtwangler!" Avoid the Music & Arts transfer. This IDIS transfer is better.










*Mozart, Don Giovanni (1953)* - This one is not quite as important since the cast is identical to the 1954 save for a better Commendatore on the 1953, and the 1954 is better recorded. But I find the 1953 to be more alert and lively. Gala, Orfeo, and Music & Arts all offer good transfers. I have all three as I can never decide between them!










*Beethoven, Fidelio (1953 LIVE)* - Note this is the live version with Martha Modl, not the studio recorded hours later (when they were more tired). Consider this low priority, as most prefer the 1950 Salzburg Fidelio with Flagstad. I just think this 1953 is uniquely inspired, particularly in the ensemble sections.










*Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen (1950, La Scala)* - Also lower priority, as you already have part of this in the Legacy box plus the entire 1953 Rome Ring, which is better recorded. But many, including myself, consider the 1950 La Scala not only Furt's best but maybe the best on record, despite the poor live sound. However, if ever there was a worthy investment for Furt sound quality, it would be the Pristine Classical La Scala Ring, which you can sample on their website. Otherwise I would recommend the Gebhardt transfer.


----------



## Gray Bean

Ordered the 1949 Brahms 4 (with Mozart 40), the Hamburg Brahms 1, the Rome Bruckner 7, the wartime Beethoven box, and the M&A Brahms box which has the 1943 Brahms 4. My pocket book is exhausted, but I am waiting by the mail box! Thank you!


----------



## Gray Bean

I’ve got that Lucerne Brahms Requiem...
Love it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Incidentally, this is my ranked list of Furtwangler recordings. I have color coded them for what you have on your three box sets.

Green = DG/Decca
Red = EMI
Blue = Legacy
Audite - bold

I split colors for recordings on multiple sets, and I also colored part blue for the Wagner recordings because they are incomplete.

(You can see how much is included in the DG/Decca set!)

1. Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 (3/22/42)
2. Brahms, Symphony No. 1: 4th movement (1945)
3. Bruckner, Symphony No. 8 (1944)
4. Beethoven, Coriolan overture (1943)
5. Wagner, Tristan und Isolde (1952)
*6. Beethoven, Symphony No. 5 (5/25/1947)*
7. Brahms, Symphony No. 1 (1951)
8. Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 (1944)
9. Bruckner, Symphony No. 9 (1944)
10. Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen excerpts (1937)
11. Brahms, Symphony No. 4/Mozart, Symphony No. 40 (1949)
12. Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6 (Pathetique) (1951)
*13. Schubert, Symphonies Nos. 8 & 9 (1953)*
14. Mozart, Don Giovanni (1953)
*15. Beethoven, Symphony No. 6 (Pastoral) (5/23/54)*
16. Brahms, Symphony No. 2 (1945)
17. Schumann, Symphony No. 4 (1953)
18. Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen (1950)
19. Beethoven, Symphonies Nos. 7 & 8 (5/53)
20. Bruckner, Symphony No. 5 (1942)
21. Brahms, Requiem (1947)
22. Beethoven, Fidelio (1953 live)
23. R. Strauss, Sinfonia domestica (1944)
24. Beethoven, Symphony No. 4 (1943)
*25. Brahms, Symphony No. 3 (1954)*
26. Bruckner, Symphony No. 7 (5/1/51)
27. Haydn, Symphony No. 88 (12/5/1951)
28. Mozart, Serenade No. 10 (Gran Partita)
29. R. Strauss, Tod und Verklärung (1950)
30. Bruckner, Symphony No. 4/Schumann, Symphony No. 1 (10/29/51)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Manxfeeder said:


> Oh, that hair! I always wondered how he could be such a ladies' man.


Dude was killing it in his younger years. DavidA will gladly list all his affairs for you.


----------



## Gray Bean

This is very, very helpful. Yes. The DG box is a treasure trove. You have been very kind to put together this list!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Gray Bean said:


> This is very, very helpful. Yes. The DG box is a treasure trove. You have been very kind to put together this list!


Have you listened to that 1945 4th movement of the Brahms 1st from the Legacy box? It is astonishing! (#2 on my Furt list). So crushing that the rest of the performance was lost. It was his final concert in Berlin before he fled. I believe the concert was interrupted by bombing raids, which might explain why it wasn't all taped. There is a smattering of applause at the end from those brave enough to attend. One can only imagine what the music meant at that time, and it shows in the recording.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Huh. That may be the first time I've ever heard Furtwangler described that way before.


I found out a long time ago that there is a first time for everything.


----------



## Gray Bean

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you listened to that 1945 4th movement of the Brahms 1st from the Legacy box? It is astonishing! (#2 on my Furt list). So crushing that the rest of the performance was lost. It was his final concert in Berlin before he fled. I believe the concert was interrupted by bombing raids, which might explain why it wasn't all taped. There is a smattering of applause at the end from those brave enough to attend. One can only imagine what the music meant at that time, and it shows in the recording.


Yes. There seems to be an elevated level of intensity and urgency in most of the war-time recordings...a terror that German art and culture was being forever tainted and perhaps even obliterated by the Nazi's terrible War. I cannot begin to imagine how the performers and the audience would have felt. I would add to this the 1944 Bruckner 9: not just the end of life, but the end of everything.


----------



## Merl

I don't think any of us can ever try to imagine what it must have been like playing music whilst the Nazis were in charge. As HvK found out with Hitler, they were an unpredictable and volatile bunch at the best of times. Reading about conductors experiences of performing during the wartime years I can only try to think of how tense musicians felt at this time. Let's hope that musicians never have to play in such circumstances ever again. I expect we may hear a similar outpouring of emotion in recordings when this current pandemic starts to lift. Strange and discomforting times often bring out the best in performers.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Becca said:


> I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm * however interest has gotten the better of me so...
> 
> I have long been wondering what it is about Wilhelm Furtwängler that so many people continue to find his performances to be so much better than most of what has come since. Yes I can understand that he was one of the top conductors of the first half of the 20th century but that doesn't explain why he is seen as THE interpretive icon. Perhaps some can offer insights into the matter.
> 
> I should note that while I do have some favourite conductors, there are things that I both like and dislike about all of them so I don't see any as rising above the others.
> 
> * In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...
> View attachment 136028


After I don't know how many pages now, I will offer my meager opinion. There isn't anything I have heard from Furtwangler or some of the other much talked about conductors, HVK, Solti, Toscanini, sometimes Bernstein, that I don't prefer other performances. A lesser known conductor and Orchestra does the piece more to my liking.

Maybe in my musical ignorance I can't hear what others hear.


----------



## 1996D

Oldhoosierdude said:


> After I don't know how many pages now, I will offer my meager opinion. There isn't anything I have heard from Furtwangler or some of the other much talked about conductors, HVK, Solti, Toscanini, sometimes Bernstein, that I don't prefer other performances. A lesser known conductor and Orchestra does the piece more to my liking.
> 
> Maybe in my musical ignorance I can't hear what others hear.


That's quite depressing, hopefully it's not like that for other non-musicians. Why would you put time into something that you make no progress on?

I can remember being a small child in a concert and liking Mozart regardless of who was conducting, but the more sophisticated one gets the more the world of music opens up. Then you perform and create yourself and truly see the levels; as you do in any field.

Just persevere, no matter the talent level you should get results with perseverance.


----------



## DavidA

Oldhoosierdude said:


> After I don't know how many pages now, I will offer my meager opinion. There isn't anything I have heard from Furtwangler or some of the other much talked about conductors, HVK, Solti, Toscanini, sometimes Bernstein, that I don't prefer other performances. A lesser known conductor and Orchestra does the piece more to my liking.
> 
> Maybe in my musical ignorance I can't hear what others hear.


Hans Anderson told a tale about 'The Emperor's New Clothes'

There is a bit of that here. Don't let it worry you.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Yes but you are making subjective judgments as though they are objective. It is not 'self-evident' - except to the initiates of course! - and many would deem your 'understanding' of Beethoven through Furtwangler to be wrong headed as they feel he was part of a romantic movement which may well have distorted Beethoven's intentions. Don't get me wrong - I believe Furty was a great conductor of certain music (Wagner a speciality) but I doubt whether you are hearing Beethoven's Beethoven through his interpretations.


I do tend to argue my point - it is what I have to do often in my work - but normally manage to insert some IMOs to make what I write "forum fit". I don't think the label "romantic" suits or fits Furtwangler particularly well. What makes his conducting more romantic that, say, Solti, Bernstein, Karajan ..? Furtwangler was of his time - and perhaps did much to establish or at least influence a prominent conducting style of his day - but, although that doesn't bother me at all, I think you can to some extent filter out some aspects of that and still hear something extraordinary in terms of insights. And I do think that many of our most revered conductors since his time often seem slightly less special when put alongside his work.

I am a little averse to statements about "Beethoven's Beethoven" as they are convenient but - in the absence of a lot of scholarship - very subjective. Even noted HIP practitioners tend to cherry pick which aspects of our scholarship to adopt and which to ignore. In any case, I have a feeling (an illusion?) that what Furtwangler gave us was very close to what is at the heart of Beethoven's music.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I do tend to argue my point - it is what I have to do often in my work - but normally manage to insert some IMOs to make what I write "forum fit". I don't think the label "romantic" suits or fits Furtwangler particularly well. What makes his conducting more romantic that, say, Solti, Bernstein, Karajan ..? Furtwangler was of his time - and perhaps did much to establish or at least influence a prominent conducting style of his day - but, although that doesn't bother me at all, I think you can to some extent filter out some aspects of that and still hear something extraordinary in terms of insights. And I do think that many of our most revered conductors since his time often seem slightly less special when put alongside his work.
> 
> I am a little averse to statements about "Beethoven's Beethoven" as they are convenient but - in the absence of a lot of scholarship - very subjective. Even noted HIP practitioners tend to cherry pick which aspects of our scholarship to adopt and which to ignore. In any case, *I have a feeling (an illusion?) that what Furtwangler gave us was very close to what is at the heart of Beethoven's music*.


It is a illusion certainly because no-one knows exactly how Beethoven saw his music. Toscanini saw himself as closer to Beethoven because of his fidelity to the score and the HIP movement likewise because of historical research. With a Furtwangler we are seeing Beethoven throughWagner which may be satisfying musically and emotionally but we cannot say it is 'close to the heart ofBeethoven's music any more than anyone else. You just hapoen to enjoy his conducting. Fine!


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> It is a illusion certainly because no-one knows exactly how Beethoven saw his music. Toscanini saw himself as closer to Beethoven because of his fidelity to the score and the HIP movement likewise because of historical research. With a Furtwangler we are seeing Beethoven throughWagner which may be satisfying musically and emotionally but we cannot say it is 'close to the heart ofBeethoven's music any more than anyone else.


I think I agree with both of you.
A bit of a digression, in relation to the word "illusion". All our experiences of what is "out there" are illusions. I'm no philosopher, but I do think Kant expressed things brilliantly in relation to "noumena" and "phenomena". Noumena: presumed things "out there" which we experience via our perceptions. Phenomena: our perceptions of the noumenal world via our sense experiences. All we have is illusions because the noumenal world is forever beyond our reach, and all we have is our experience of phenomena. We construct our models of the noumenal world through our experience of phenomena, and all we really have is metaphors.
Any sense that someone may have that Furtwangler is close to the heart of Beethoven's music is an illusion. But on the other hand, illusions are all we have about anything out there, so that's not really to downplay their feeling. Where it gets tricky is when we claim our illusions are valid and other people's illusions are not, as though we have a direct understanding of the noumenal world and they don't. I think that's a parallel to why people get heated about this topic: it's the claim some (appear to?) make of having special access to a musical truth, whereas others have a superficial access only. "I can experience the noumena, but you're stuck with phenomena!" Well, sorry to say, but the noumena are beyond all our reaches.
Is that nerdy enough for everyone?:lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> It is a illusion certainly because no-one knows exactly how Beethoven saw his music. Toscanini saw himself as closer to Beethoven because of his fidelity to the score and the HIP movement likewise because of historical research. With a Furtwangler we are seeing Beethoven throughWagner which may be satisfying musically and emotionally but we cannot say it is 'close to the heart ofBeethoven's music any more than anyone else. You just hapoen to enjoy his conducting. Fine!


Perhaps it is you now who is stating subjective opinion as fact? I don't think Furtwangler's gift with Beethoven can be dismissed as "seeing Beethoven through Wagner". Nor am I convinced that Toscanini (I do love his Beethoven, too) was more historically correct than Furtwangler. As you say, no-one knows.

And, yes, I happen to enjoy Furtwangler's conducting (a lot). This has led me to describe what I feel and think about it and your preference for Toscanini is leading you to do the same.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Perhaps it is you now who is stating subjective opinion as fact? I don't think Furtwangler's gift with Beethoven can be dismissed as "seeing Beethoven through Wagner". Nor am I convinced that Toscanini (I do love his Beethoven, too) was more historically correct than Furtwangler. As you say, no-one knows.
> 
> And, yes, I happen to enjoy Furtwangler's conducting (a lot). This has led me to describe what I feel and think about it and your preference for Toscanini is leading you to do the same.


I actually don't listen to Toscanini's Beethoven although I have a complete set because the recording quality is pretty poor even for the day. I didn't dismiss Firtwangler's gift I just stated a fact about it. Sorry but that is history.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ The earlier Toscanini set - which is supposed to be much the better one - does sound awful. The later one (from the '50s?) is not so bad.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^ The earlier Toscanini set - which is supposed to be much the better one - does sound awful. The later one (from the '50s?) is not so bad.


The later one does not represent him at his best when his beat had become somewhat stiff. Still pretty good though! But the 1936 Beethoven 7th from NY shows just how great he was.


----------



## millionrainbows

I never was tempted to buy any Toscanini, even after hearing it. The recordings were bad, he took tempos too fast, and the orchestras sounded out-of-tune.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We can call all reactions to music “subjective” and “illusory” and yet at the same time part of why we discuss it is the question, “Do you hear what I hear?” Sometimes the answer is no, but often the answer is yes, and in that case there are reasons why we hear the same thing. Just as in love, music however beyond our understanding it is can be explained to some extent scientifically. My professor in college used to go through Beethoven’s harmonic language and explain how at each point in the composition it related to the emotions we feel. Does everyone feel it? Of course not, but many do, and there are tangible reasons.

Furtwängler knew what he was doing. I think to deny that is disingenuous based simply on the fact that he attained such a position in life and still now 65 years after his death. If there is a fascination about it, it’s that he attained such success while being a complete individual, not following any prescribed method in the way he wiggled about and gesticulated on the podium. To have achieved such enduring appeal via such individual idiosyncrasy is truly a wonder.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think it is important to say this too, as we talk about Furtwangler's inimitable uniqueness and previously about the idea that modern technique has "prevailed" over Furtwangler:

The central theme of the movie Amadeus is that genius exists as its own unique phenomenon, and this can often inspire jealousy. You cannot create genius. All you can do is foster an environment that allows its growth.

My issue with the conservatory mindset is the extent to which it tries to literally stamp out individual genius by instead creating a streamlined method whereby anyone can achieve success through hard work and dedication. This in my view is the road to mediocrity.

There is nothing wrong with individual, inimitable genius. It should be celebrated, not condemned. If we truly live in a world where "modern technique" has triumphed over individual genius, then it is truly a sad time indeed. In my view, no one should try to imitate Furtwangler. But an environment that fosters individual creativity is one that celebrates unique artistry as opposed to condemning it for not fitting within the prescribed method.

In this sense, Becca was right about the topic of Furtwangler being a firestorm. It's not just a question of one man. It's a philosophical question of how we approach art, and that is something I feel very passionate about.


----------



## Bigbang

DavidA said:


> Hans Anderson told a tale about 'The Emperor's New Clothes'
> 
> There is a bit of that here. Don't let it worry you.


Thanks for the warning; I was already to take off on a musical journey to eternal musical enlightenment where I would spend big bucks on new cds and share my passion with fellow believers. But, then I read your post and thought, nah, I like my ignorance too much.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> I think I agree with both of you.
> A bit of a digression, in relation to the word "illusion". All our experiences of what is "out there" are illusions. I'm no philosopher, but I do think Kant expressed things brilliantly in relation to "noumena" and "phenomena". Noumena: presumed things "out there" which we experience via our perceptions. Phenomena: our perceptions of the noumenal world via our sense experiences. All we have is illusions because the noumenal world is forever beyond our reach, and all we have is our experience of phenomena. We construct our models of the noumenal world through our experience of phenomena, and all we really have is metaphors.
> Any sense that someone may have that Furtwangler is close to the heart of Beethoven's music is an illusion. But on the other hand, illusions are all we have about anything out there, so that's not really to downplay their feeling. Where it gets tricky is when we claim our illusions are valid and other people's illusions are not, as though we have a direct understanding of the noumenal world and they don't. I think that's a parallel to why people get heated about this topic: it's the claim some (appear to?) make of having special access to a musical truth, whereas others have a superficial access only. "I can experience the noumena, but you're stuck with phenomena!" Well, sorry to say, but the noumena are beyond all our reaches.
> Is that nerdy enough for everyone?:lol:


I tried to cover some of this in a previous post and being in a rush, just stated things. We are closer on this idea for sure but don't expect to many people to get nerdy on this type of conversations though music is clearly a topic for discussions on our experiences.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bigbang said:


> Thanks for the warning; I was already to take off on a musical journey to eternal musical enlightenment where I would spend big bucks on new cds and share my passion with fellow believers. But, then I read your post and thought, nah, I like my ignorance too much.


The Karajan vs Furtwangler rivalry began when the Nazis used Karajan as competition to try and keep Furtwangler in line, and it continues 80 years later on classical music forums. :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Hans Anderson told a tale about 'The Emperor's New Clothes'
> 
> There is a bit of that here. Don't let it worry you.


You didn't answer my question about the VPO Eroica you listened to - was it the 1944 or the 1952 EMI studio? Big difference between the two. I also highly recommend the live 1952 BPO I linked a couple of pages back.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The Karajan vs Furtwangler rivalry began when the Nazis used Karajan as competition to try and keep Furtwangler in line, and it continues 80 years later on classical music forums. :lol:


To be clear, I'm not saying any of this refers to you (as you make various positive remarks about both of the above, although I think we all know where your sympathies lie ).

Anyway, I am sure you are right here, but as a listener now I don't have to participate in that rivalry. It's a pity if that does continue.

Take another figure, Eugen Jochum. Suppose new documentary evidence turns up to indicate he was an enthusiastically active supporter of the Nazi regime. How does that make me feel about his performances? More interestingly, perhaps, suppose it turns out that he was actively involved in resistance efforts against the regime. Should I like his work more? Suppose he had been believed to be an active supporter, and it now turns out that he was secretly working against them. Do I now move his performances from some sort of personal banned list, to a "like his work" category. To be honest, because I am not specifically interested in musical biographies I would rather not know, and then have to consider whether my impressions are being distorted by my very limited knowledge.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We can call all reactions to music "subjective" and "illusory" and yet at the same time part of why we discuss it is the question, "Do you hear what I hear?" Sometimes the answer is no, but often the answer is yes, and in that case there are reasons why we hear the same thing. Just as in love, music however beyond our understanding it is can be explained to some extent scientifically. My professor in college used to go through Beethoven's harmonic language and explain how at each point in the composition it related to the emotions we feel. Does everyone feel it? Of course not, but many do, and there are tangible reasons.
> 
> Furtwängler knew what he was doing. I think to deny that is disingenuous based simply on the fact that he attained such a position in life and still now 65 years after his death. If there is a fascination about it, it's that he attained such success while being a complete individual, not following any prescribed method in the way he wiggled about and gesticulated on the podium. To have achieved such enduring appeal via such individual idiosyncrasy is truly a wonder.


I think the love parallel is good, although I'm English so we only do deep affection. Anyway, it's a good thing that different people love different things and different people. And analyse it as deeply as you can, I believe (and hope) that you will never discover an ultimate reason for why. I like to think that the world, and the people who live in it, are too complex for that. We should celebrate diversity of opinion.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The Karajan vs Furtwangler rivalry began when the Nazis used Karajan as competition to try and keep Furtwangler in line, and it continues 80 years later on classical music forums. :lol:


You are wrong there. It began long before when Karajan began to get noticed in the press. Furtwangler was absolutely paranoid about any other conductor who could possibly be a rival to him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You are wrong there. It began long before when Karajan *began to get noticed in the press*. Furtwangler was absolutely paranoid about any other conductor who could possibly be a rival to him.


There was a reason behind that.

Karajan was held up as an example of someone more cooperative, better behaved, than Furtwangler had been towards the Nazi regime.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There was a reason behind that.
> 
> Karajan was held up as an example of someone more cooperative, better behaved, than Furtwangler had been towards the Nazi regime.


No you are wrong here. Karajan was set up as a pawn in the struggle for control of Berlin's cultural institutions between Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, a Furtwängler supporter, and Minister of Interior Hermann Goering, the patron of the Berlin State Opera. This whole nonsense about Furtwangler being the good guy is complete tosh. He got a good living out of the Nazis. The difference between theM at the time was that Furtwangler was internationally famous and in a far more powerful position. Plus the fact that in 1939 Karajan fell from favour during the performance of mastersingers when the bass was drunk and Hitler took it as a personal slight.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Wikipedia:

The Nazi leaders searched for another conductor to counterbalance Furtwängler.[85] A young, gifted Austrian conductor now appeared in the Third Reich: Herbert von Karajan. Karajan had joined the Nazi Party early and was much more willing to participate in the propaganda of the new regime than Furtwängler.[86]

Furtwängler had attended several of his concerts, praising his technical gifts but criticizing his conducting style; he did not consider him a serious competitor. However, when Karajan conducted Fidelio and Tristan und Isolde in Berlin in late 1938, Göring decided to take the initiative.[85] The music critic Edwin von der Nüll wrote a review of these concerts with the support of Göring. Its title, "The Karajan Miracle", was a reference to the famous article "The Furtwängler Miracle" that had made Furtwängler famous as a young conductor in Mannheim. Von der Nüll championed Karajan saying, "A thirty-year-old man creates a performance for which our great fifty-year-olds can justifiably envy him". Furtwängler's photo was printed next to the article, making the reference clear.[87]

The article was part of a broader attack made against Furtwängler.[87] The Nazi press criticized him for being "a man of the Nineteenth century" whose political ideas were obsolete and who did not understand and accept the new changes in Germany. The situation became intolerable for Furtwängler. He obtained from Goebbels a pledge to cease these attacks.[88]

However, Furtwängler's position was weakened: he knew that if he left Germany, Karajan would immediately become the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic. It was the beginning of an obsessive hate and contempt for Karajan that never left him until his death. He often refused to call Karajan by his name, calling him simply "Herr K". Hitler's opinion was that even if Furtwängler was infinitely better than Karajan as a conductor, it was necessary to keep Karajan "in reserve" since Furtwängler was "not politically trustworthy".


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wikipedia:
> 
> The Nazi leaders searched for another conductor to counterbalance Furtwängler.[85] A young, gifted Austrian conductor now appeared in the Third Reich: Herbert von Karajan. Karajan had joined the Nazi Party early and was much more willing to participate in the propaganda of the new regime than Furtwängler.[86]
> 
> Furtwängler had attended several of his concerts, praising his technical gifts but criticizing his conducting style; he did not consider him a serious competitor. However, when Karajan conducted Fidelio and Tristan und Isolde in Berlin in late 1938, Göring decided to take the initiative.[85] The music critic Edwin von der Nüll wrote a review of these concerts with the support of Göring. Its title, "The Karajan Miracle", was a reference to the famous article "The Furtwängler Miracle" that had made Furtwängler famous as a young conductor in Mannheim. Von der Nüll championed Karajan saying, "A thirty-year-old man creates a performance for which our great fifty-year-olds can justifiably envy him". Furtwängler's photo was printed next to the article, making the reference clear.[87]
> 
> The article was part of a broader attack made against Furtwängler.[87] The Nazi press criticized him for being "a man of the Nineteenth century" whose political ideas were obsolete and who did not understand and accept the new changes in Germany. The situation became intolerable for Furtwängler. He obtained from Goebbels a pledge to cease these attacks.[88]
> 
> However, Furtwängler's position was weakened: he knew that if he left Germany, Karajan would immediately become the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic. It was the beginning of an obsessive hate and contempt for Karajan that never left him until his death. He often refused to call Karajan by his name, calling him simply "Herr K". Hitler's opinion was that even if Furtwängler was infinitely better than Karajan as a conductor, it was necessary to keep Karajan "in reserve" since Furtwängler was "not politically trustworthy".


Yes this is the position put forward by Furtwangler's defenders. Furtwangler wanted to keep his position. Karajan was also an opportunist so there was not too much to choose between them. Your from Wikipedia is a very simplistic idea of what happened. There were other conductors like Bohm and Knapoersbusch also in the wings. The musicians were pawns in the struggle for power among the Nazis. Both of them and both of them wanted to take advantage of it. By the end of the war both of them were trying to escape with their lives.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Yes this is the position put forward by Furtwangler's defenders. Furtwangler wanted to keep his position. Karajan was also an opportunist so there was not too much to choose between them. Your from Wikipedia is a very simplistic idea of what happened. There were other conductors like Bohm and Knapoersbusch also in the wings. *The musicians were pawns in the struggle for power among the Nazis.* Both of them and both of them wanted to take advantage of it. By the end of the war both of them were trying to escape with their lives.


But Furtwangler was the one who was actively opposing the Nazis, criticizing their policies, even to Hitler's face. This put the Nazis in a dilemma of how to handle an artist they needed in Germany for the prestige of the regime. Furtwangler naively thought he could utilize his position to influence the Nazis. So the Nazis figured out ways to give Furtwangler the feeling he was being given political freedom when in fact they were just using his name to give the appearance of support to the rest of the world. But the reality was that Furtwangler got away with things that would have gotten just about anyone else thrown into a concentration camp.

So Furtwangler was a pain in the Nazis' rear end that they couldn't live with and couldn't live without. That was why Karajan was a suitable pawn due to the fact that he couldn't care less about making trouble for the Nazis. He willingly joined them from the very beginning and was merely a compliant artist trying to make a living. The message to Furtwangler was clear: If you don't comply with the regime's policies, we have someone waiting in the wings who will.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But Furtwangler was the one who was actively opposing the Nazis, criticizing their policies, even to Hitler's face. This put the Nazis in a dilemma of how to handle an artist they needed in Germany for the prestige of the regime. Furtwangler naively thought he could utilize his position to influence the Nazis. So the Nazis figured out ways to give Furtwangler the feeling he was being given political freedom when in fact they were just using his name to give the appearance of support to the rest of the world. But still, Furtwangler got away with things that would have gotten just about anyone else thrown into a concentration camp.
> 
> So Furtwangler was a pain in the Nazis' rear end that they couldn't live with and couldn't live without. That was why Karajan was a suitable pawn due to the fact that he couldn't care less about making trouble for the Nazis. He willingly joined them from the very beginning and was merely a compliant artist trying to make a living. The message to Furtwangler was clear: If you don't comply with the regime's policies, we have someone waiting in the wings who will.


You are very naive if you believe this. Furtwangler knew what side his bread was buttered on. He got a good living out of the Nazis


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You are very naive if you believe this. Furtwangler knew what side his bread was buttered on. He got a good living out of the Nazis


It's documented. You seem to be seeing things as you would like to see them as opposed to the actual accounts of how it transpired.

Furtwangler would have made a good living anywhere in the world. He stayed for emotional reasons. He was too tied to Germany. When he heard of an artist who committed suicide after leaving Germany during the war, he remarked to his wife, "That would have been me."


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Furtwangler would have made a good living anywhere in the world. He stayed for emotional reasons. He was too tied to Germany. *When he heard of an artist who committed suicide after leaving Germany during the war, he remarked to his wife, "That would have been me."*


Impossible to imagine Karajan ever making such a remark.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

"Furtwängler refused to participate in the propaganda film Philharmoniker. Goebbels wanted Furtwängler to feature in it, but Furtwängler declined to take part. The film was finished in December 1943 showing many conductors connected with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, including Eugen Jochum, Karl Böhm, Hans Knappertsbusch, and Richard Strauss, but not Furtwängler.[114] Goebbels also asked Furtwängler to direct the music in a film about Beethoven, again for propaganda purposes. They quarrelled violently about this project. Furtwängler told him "You are wrong, Herr Minister, if you think you can exploit Beethoven in a film." Goebbels gave up his plans for the film.[115]

In April 1944, Goebbels wrote:

Furtwängler has never been a National Socialist. Nor has he ever made any bones about it, which Jews and emigrants thought was sufficient to consider him as one of them, a key representative of so-called 'inner emigration'. Furtwängler['s] stance towards us has not changed in the least.[110][116][117][118]"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

"Friedelind Wagner, the composer's anti-Nazi granddaughter, witnessed a meeting between Hitler and Furtwängler at her mother's Bayreuth home:

I remember Hitler turning to Furtwängler and telling him that he would now have to allow himself to be used by the party for propaganda purposes, and I remember that Furtwängler refused categorically. Hitler flew into a fury and told Furtwängler that in that case there would be a concentration camp ready for him. Furtwängler quietly replied: "In that case, Herr Reichskanzler, at least I will be in very good company." Hitler couldn't even answer, and vanished from the room.[77]"


----------



## Eclectic Al

This last page or so is why I posted earlier that I don't seek to investigate biographical details. I am in too privileged a position to criticise those who had to cope with living in those years, and I certainly wouldn't want to think that it could be that I like a performance because of admiration for something about the performer's character, rather than because it is a good performance.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's documented. You seem to be seeing things as you would like to see them as opposed to the actual accounts of how it transpired.
> 
> Furtwangler would have made a good living anywhere in the world. He stayed for emotional reasons. He was too tied to Germany. When he heard of an artist who committed suicide after leaving Germany during the war, he remarked to his wife, "That would have been me."


Of course, but he still had a good living in Germany under the Nazis. He wasn't some kind of martyr you are trying to make him out to be. I know he is your hero but he was not this wonderful human being you are making him out to be any more than Karajan, Bohm, Knappersbusch or any of the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonic were.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> This last page or so is why I posted earlier that I don't seek to investigate biographical details. I am in too privileged a position to criticise those who had to cope with living in those years, and I certainly wouldn't want to think that it could be that I like a performance because of admiration for something about the performer's character, rather than because it is a good performance.


Absolutely. We can be thankful we have never had to make the choices some did. Some like Sophie Scholl and Bonhoffer made other choices and were literally martyrs for the cause of opposing Hitler. One is not judging these musicians but just getting some perspective on it. They may not have been execrable villains like the Nazis but neither were they heroes some would like them to be.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Of course, but he still had a good living in Germany under the Nazis. He wasn't some kind of martyr you are trying to make him out to be. I know he is your hero but he was not this wonderful human being you are making him out to be any more than Karajan, Bohm, Knappersbusch or any of the Vienna or Berlin Philharmonic were.


Once again we have someone on this thread using cheap straw man tactics of exaggerating and misstating one's position in order to try and "win" an argument.

I never called him a martyr. I posted specific examples of actions he took in defiance of the Nazis, and there are many more, including the infamous Hindemith affair. I never said Furtwangler was a Sophie Scholl or an Oskar Schindler. My point was that he opposed the Nazis, made trouble for them, and that was why they used the threat of Karajan replacing him as incentive to be more cooperative.

In order to support your position that Furtwangler and Karajan were moral equals under the Nazis - purely conjecture until you prove otherwise - why don't you post example of actions Karajan took in opposition to them?


----------



## Merl

I think you're both right to some extent. As I said earlier, living and working under that volatile regime must have been hell on earth. Neither Furty or Herbie had any interest in politics, loved working in Germany and basically just wanted to play their music. It was all a big game to the Nazis and yes they did use the two against each other. On one hand you've got the older conductor who for him 'art was everything' and the ambitious new kid on the block. The Nazis did a fine job of turning Furty against Herbie as they knew that WF had "An obstinate, angry temperament that his father actively encouraged' (in the words of Elisabeth Furtwangler). In turn Karajan became frustrated as he couldn't understand why a man he admired so much would not have anything to do with him. Oh, those crafty Nazis! However, it's wrong to make out that WF was some kind of people's hero bucking against the Nazis from some kind of moral highground. WF was used as a German embassador by Hitler and yes his envy of Karajan was used to keep him in check. I'm not supporting any of them here - as Goldschmidt and others have argued - if all conductors working in Germany had been truly, thoroughly opposed to the Nazis they would have left Germany, as many prominent musicians had already done, but that's too simplistic a view too (even more simplistic than that rather narrow Wiki article). WF was not a pain to Hitler, he was a minor annoyance (I think Hitler had more important problems with that 'war thingy') but this was offset by having a reknowned conductor as his cultural pawn. The question of the complicity really does not matter. Both men stayed for different reasons but both loved their music. They probably thought they were doing the right thing. I've never judged either on that but others have. That last line from the Wiki article about Furty being worried Karajan would take over the BPO is utter garbage. There is no way an up and coming conductor at that time would have been offered the BPO job had Furtwangler fled. Furty would have gone to New York had Goerring not stuck his oar in. That BPO post would almost certainly have gone to the pro-Nazi Bohm, a man Hitler personally admired a lot and whose rise to the Dresden State Opera was facilitated by Hitler. Hitler hated Karajan and marrying a woman who was part-Jew hardly enamoured him to the Third Reich. By the end of the war both men had to get out sharpish as it's likely that at least one of them would have been bumped off (Karajan was tipped off and was supported by de Sabata and others to get out).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl, with all due respect, you are simply sweeping under the rug all the evidence that Furtwängler did in fact stand up to the Nazis on account of his own moral conviction on many occasions to the extent that he could. My question again is what evidence do we have of Karajan doing the same? The assertion that they were both politically neutral artists is not supported by the documented accounts we have.


----------



## Dimace

I love Wilhelm as I love any other great director. He has brilliant moments and other not so brilliant, as any other director (and composer) A lot has been written for him and to make my supplements is futile. It is a privilege users from America and UK to support and admire so much the ''German Products''. From my side I could say that should be more constructive to argue for less known directors such Ataulfo, Nickisch or the new blood as Theodoros. Wilhelm made well his job. But Ataulfo made it also well. Who has the most ''reference or definitive'' recordings in comparison with the total number of them? Who was more prolific on the stage? Etc, etc... I acknowledge the brilliance of the great names. Their influence and the magic they have. But I'm very sceptical with their contribution to our art. Is it so big, or it is also a result of promotion? Most of the best recordings I have (of course this is personale taste pure) are without the very big names. The same my best Chopin is with Francois and the best Brahms with Dimitris. As conclusion I could say that I don't believe that in music we have ''best guys'' What I believe is that we have the best art. For this reason I will always admire the art and not the artists, despite the first is driven by the second. (nice thread)


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Brahmsianhorn has presented a good case for the exoneration of Furtwangler. Now I can listen to his music guilt-free.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think Brahmsianhorn has presented a good case for the exoneration of Furtwangler. Now I can listen to his music guilt-free.


I have never had a problem listening to his conducting. It is when people try and present him as some kind of heroic figure that I resist.


----------



## Bigbang

millionrainbows said:


> I think Brahmsianhorn has presented a good case for the exoneration of Furtwangler. Now I can listen to his music guilt-free.


What about listening in ignorance? It is just about one man? What of the orchestra? What of the known Nazi leadership who would weep when hearing a Mozart work? Guilty by association? Anyway, better to do your own research and do what you want then to merely read what is on these boards.


----------



## DavidA

Bigbang said:


> What about listening in ignorance? It is just about one man? What of the orchestra? What of the known Nazi leadership who would weep when hearing a Mozart work? Guilty by association? Anyway, better to do your own research and do what you want then to merely read what is on these boards.


If you research you will find that both the Berlin and the Vienna orchestras just after the war contained members who were far more involved with the Nazis than the big named conductors.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bigbang said:


> What about listening in ignorance? It is just about one man? What of the orchestra? What of the known Nazi leadership who would weep when hearing a Mozart work? Guilty by association? Anyway, better to do your own research and do what you want then to merely read what is on these boards.


I couldn't agree more. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that Brahmsianhorn has presented a good case (with sources) for the exoneration of Furtwangler.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> I have never had a problem *listening *to his conducting. It is when people try and present him as some kind of heroic figure that I resist.


I can see Furtwangler as representing a distinctly German way of conducting. I never said he was a hero; now I can see him as "not a villain" as well. Now I can istening to his conducting without negative baggage.

As I've said before, you can't "objectify" music by "just listening" without tacitly removing its inter-subjective dimension. Ewe should ask: "Was the artist sincere? What was the artist trying to do?", etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bigbang said:


> *What about listening in ignorance? *It is just about one man? What of the orchestra? *What of the known Nazi leadership who would weep when hearing a Mozart work?* Guilty by association? Anyway, better to do your own research and do what you want then to merely read what is on these boards.


You should not "listen in ignorance." To answer the other question, the Nazis were human, too.


----------



## Enthusiast

The thing that gets me with all the "conductors and the Nazis" stories is that there must have been many Jews in their orchestras and then there must have been few or none. I find it hard to imagine their continuing to conduct there after that.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I couldn't agree more. Still, that doesn't negate the fact that Brahmsianhorn has presented a good case (with sources) for the exoneration of Furtwangler.


Yes but what about the orchestras he was conducting?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> The thing that gets me with all the "conductors and the Nazis" stories is that there must have been many Jews in their orchestras and then there must have been few or none. I find it hard to imagine their continuing to conduct there after that.


Furtwangler held on to Jewish orchestra members, as well as his secretary Berta Geissmar (who has written a great deal to exonerate him), as long as he could, and there are numerous stories of his saving Jewish lives and arranging their escape.

Most close observers paint Furtwangler not as a hero, but more as someone who was naive. He thought he could remain in Germany while also being politically independent. So he made deals with the Nazis, such as not having to join the party or give the salute, thinking this achieved his goal. The reality is that the Nazis used his continued presence as tacit support of the regime, and the world saw it that way. It was only after the war that stories began to circulate as to his opposition to the Nazis. In short, his heart was in the right place, but the Nazis ended up benefiting from his presence.

The counterargument, which I think is a compelling one, is that Furtwangler was a beacon to those in Germany who opposed the Nazis. He was a member of the resistance in spirit and in many cases in deed. Did his helpful actions within Germany outweigh the worldwide symbolic action of remaining there?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Furtwangler held on to Jewish orchestra members, as well as his secretary Berta Geissmar (who has written a great deal to exonerate him), as long as he could, and there are numerous stories of his saving Jewish lives and arranging their escape.
> 
> Most close observers paint Furtwangler not as a hero, but more as someone who was naive. He thought he could remain in Germany while also being politically independent. So he made deals with the Nazis, such as not having to join the party or give the salute, thinking this achieved his goal. The reality is that the Nazis used his continued presence as tacit support of the regime, and the world saw it that way. It was only after the war that stories began to circulate as to his opposition to the Nazis. In short, his heart was in the right place, but the Nazis ended up benefiting from his presence.
> 
> The counterargument, which I think is a compelling one, is that Furtwangler was a beacon to those in Germany who opposed the Nazis. He was a member of the resistance in spirit and in many cases in deed. Did his helpful actions within Germany outweigh the worldwide symbolic action of remaining there?


Bruno Walter (a fellow German) wrote to Furtwangler in 1946

"Please bear in mind that your art was used over the years as an extremely effective means of foreign propaganda for the regime of the devil; that you, thanks to your personal fame and great talent, performed valuable service for this regime and that in Germany itself the presence and activities of an artist of your rank helped to provide cultural and moral credit to those terrible criminals or at least gave considerable help to them…. In contrast to that, of what significance was your helpful behavior in individual cases of Jewish distress?"


----------



## MaxKellerman

DavidA said:


> Bruno Walter (a fellow German) wrote to Furtwangler in 1946
> 
> "Please bear in mind that your art was used over the years as an extremely effective means of foreign propaganda for the regime of the devil; that you, thanks to your personal fame and great talent, performed valuable service for this regime and that in Germany itself the presence and activities of an artist of your rank helped to provide cultural and moral credit to those terrible criminals or at least gave considerable help to them…. In contrast to that, of what significance was your helpful behavior in individual cases of Jewish distress?"


Obviously the issue has always divided opinion. Yehudi Menuhin from a letter sent to General Robert A. McClure in February 1946:

"Unless you have secret incriminating evidence against Furtwängler supporting your accusation that he was a tool of Nazi Party, I beg to take violent issue with your decision to ban him. The man never was a Party member. Upon numerous occasions, he risked his own safety and reputation to protect friends and colleagues. Do not believe that the fact of remaining in one's own country is alone sufficient to condemn a man. *On the contrary, as a military man, you would know that remaining at one's post often requires greater courage than running away*. He saved, and for that we are deeply his debtors, the best part of his own German culture.

*As for quote 'lending an aura of respectability to the Party', are we the Allies not infinitely more guilty and of our own free will by recognising and pactizing with these monsters when almost despite ourselves we were literally dragged and unchivalrously knocked into this struggle*, except of course for Great Britain which declared war before being directly attacked. Remember Munich and Berchtesgaden and all the years when we all wantonly abandoned to their cruel fate every brave and hopeful heart, every valiant and defiant nation. I believe it patently unjust and most cowardly for us to make of Furtwängler a scapegoat for our own crimes.

If the man is guilty of specific crimes, accuse him and convict him. As far as I can see, it is no punishment to be banned from sordid, filthy Berlin and if the man now old and ill is willing and anxious to return to his exacting task and responsibilities he should be encouraged for that is where he belongs, right in Berlin. If this diseased nation should ever grow up to become a self-respecting member of the community of nations, it will be due to the efforts of men like Furtwängler who have proven that they are able to rescue from the war at least part of their soul. Witness the Berlin Philharmonic. These men alone are able to build on this unsullied base a better society. It is not by stifling such men that you will achieve your aim. Quite the contrary you will only stir up a justifiable resentment against a vandalism as real as the more obvious variety which carves up churches and paintings [...]"


----------



## Coach G

We are willing to scrutinize what Furtwangler could have, should have, done as a prominet German while living under a totalitarian regime that could have placed him and his family in a death camp at any time. So then, to what extent should we pass judgment on famous and influential British and American citizens who enjoyed freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, freedom of assembly, due process, and other liberties guaranteed under governments that afforded them those rights during the times of British imperialism and the American genocide that was committed against the native populations, as well as regarding the enslavement and segregation of American Blacks? 

According to Wikipedia, what Furtwangler did during the time of the Nazi regime, practically qualifies him as a righteous gentile.

Fact check?


----------



## JAS

Coach G said:


> We are willing to scrutinize what Furtwangler could have, should have, done as a prominet German while living under a totalitarian regime that could have placed him and his family in a death camp at any time. So then, to what extent should we pass judgment on famous and influential British and American citizens who enjoyed freedom of speech, freedom of dissent, freedom of assembly, due process, and other liberties guaranteed under governments that afforded them those rights during the times of British imperialism and the American genocide that was committed against the native populations, as well as regarding the enslavement and segregation of American Blacks?
> 
> According to Wikipedia, what Furtwangler did during the time of the Nazi regime, practically qualifies him as a righteous gentile.
> 
> Fact check?


Without getting into political details, I have a whole new sympathy for Germans who did not approve of the rise of the Nazis but found that there was actually very little they could do about it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

A long read, but very illuminating, not to mention refreshingly balanced: http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html

_Furtwängler did not simply retreat into himself or the sanctum of art. Rather, according to numerous testimonials, he displayed enormous moral courage, constantly placing his life and reputation in jeopardy. For the next decade, he spent much of his time intervening with party officials in nearly impossible tasks of protection and rescue for potential victims who sought his assistance, including strangers and even professional enemies. Although the evidence is often anecdotal, archivist Fred Prieberg claims that his research alone has documented over eighty people at risk who were saved by Furtwängler's efforts.

While Furtwängler's outward passivity (quashed beneath distorted Nazi news reports) was interpreted abroad as collaboration, we now know that his quiet heroism saved far more lives than abrasive ranting or symbolic emigration. As Paul Minchin, Chairman of the English Furtwängler Society, has aptly observed: "It takes far more courage to oppose a totalitarian regime from within." It is clear that Furtwängler had at least as much courage as the self-proclaimed champions of humanity who branded him a coward but who lobbed all their verbal grenades from the safe harbor of the free world.

So was Furtwängler a neglected saint? Not quite. There is, unfortunately, a less laudable side to his wartime activities.

Notwithstanding his courage, Furtwängler did not act out of pure altruism. Nearly everything he did was intended to preserve the integrity of German music. But since Furtwängler considered himself the foremost exemplar of that art, his activity served to solidify his status and gratify his ego. Furtwängler can hardly be compared to Raoul Wallenberg, Oskar Schindler and other heroes who had nothing to gain and acted purely as a matter of conscience, ultimately sacrificing all they had in order to oppose Nazi genocide. Focussed solely on art, Furtwängler simply did not concern himself with the larger social context.

Even as late as May 1945, Furtwängler did not seem to fully grasp the consequence of Nazi racism. From the geographic and historical perspective of sanctuary in Switzerland, he had ample time to reflect upon the prior decade. His principal concern, though, became a fear that in the aftermath of defeat the now-publicized atrocities would be blamed upon the entire German people, thus unfairly ignoring their cultural greatness and inner nobility. Despite all he had witnessed, Furtwängler simply could not accept that the culture which once had produced Goethe and Beethoven had now rotted into a mire of jackboots and crematoria. Fred Prieberg calls this a protective mythology which Furtwängler created to shield himself from accountability in a real world in which civilizations do fail, in which people are held responsible for their leaders, and in which art cannot be so conveniently isolated from politics. Furtwängler's tragedy was that he had to believe this illusion of permanent German cultural merit in order to justify his life's work. Concludes Prieberg: "Furtwängler sacrificed himself to his own fiction."

In recent years, we have been regaled by a pathetic parade of aged German artists claiming dewy-eyed ignorance of the Holocaust. Would Furtwängler have been one of these? Other than a few post-war expressions of shame, there is no evidence that he ever took a stand against the awful culmination of his casual tolerance of antisemitism. Indeed, it seems inconceivable that a man who spent so much of his time closely studying political leaders and social trends and successfully manipulating them to his professional benefit could have been genuinely ignorant of this cornerstone of Nazi activity and policy. Or, knowing, did he view the world through artistic blinders and simply not care?

Speculation as to Furtwängler's state of mind is confusing and inconclusive. Fortunately, though, there is a far more reliable index to his conscience. When we listen to wartime performances by Strauss, Böhm, von Karajan, Krauss, Mengelberg and other Axis amoralists, we hear conductors utterly at peace with themselves, blissfully oblivious to the horrors around them, comfortably nestled in their insular worlds of abstract artistic contentment.

But Furtwängler's output of the time is of a wholly different dimension, ranging far beyond the bounds of accepted classical tradition, distended by brutally twisted structures, outrageous tempos, jagged phrasing, bizarre balances and violent dynamics. This is simply not the expression of a cold-hearted Nazi. Rather, it clearly and irrefutably signifies a sensitive but deeply troubled man torn by inner conflict and soul-wrenching doubt, constantly on the verge of exploding with torment._


----------



## Merl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> A long read, but very illuminating, not to mention refreshingly balanced: http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html
> 
> _Furtwängler did not simply retreat into himself or the sanctum of art. Rather, according to numerous testimonials, he displayed enormous moral courage, constantly placing his life and reputation in jeopardy. For the next decade, he spent much of his time intervening with party officials in nearly impossible tasks of protection and rescue for potential victims who sought his assistance, including strangers and even professional enemies. Although the evidence is often anecdotal, archivist Fred Prieberg claims that his research alone has documented over eighty people at risk who were saved by Furtwängler's efforts.
> 
> While Furtwängler's outward passivity (quashed beneath distorted Nazi news reports) was interpreted abroad as collaboration, we now know that his quiet heroism saved far more lives than abrasive ranting or symbolic emigration. As Paul Minchin, Chairman of the English Furtwängler Society, has aptly observed: "It takes far more courage to oppose a totalitarian regime from within." It is clear that Furtwängler had at least as much courage as the self-proclaimed champions of humanity who branded him a coward but who lobbed all their verbal grenades from the safe harbor of the free world.
> 
> So was Furtwängler a neglected saint? Not quite. There is, unfortunately, a less laudable side to his wartime activities.
> 
> Notwithstanding his courage, Furtwängler did not act out of pure altruism. Nearly everything he did was intended to preserve the integrity of German music. But since Furtwängler considered himself the foremost exemplar of that art, his activity served to solidify his status and gratify his ego. Furtwängler can hardly be compared to Raoul Wallenberg, Oskar Schindler and other heroes who had nothing to gain and acted purely as a matter of conscience, ultimately sacrificing all they had in order to oppose Nazi genocide. Focussed solely on art, Furtwängler simply did not concern himself with the larger social context.
> 
> Even as late as May 1945, Furtwängler did not seem to fully grasp the consequence of Nazi racism. From the geographic and historical perspective of sanctuary in Switzerland, he had ample time to reflect upon the prior decade. His principal concern, though, became a fear that in the aftermath of defeat the now-publicized atrocities would be blamed upon the entire German people, thus unfairly ignoring their cultural greatness and inner nobility. Despite all he had witnessed, Furtwängler simply could not accept that the culture which once had produced Goethe and Beethoven had now rotted into a mire of jackboots and crematoria. Fred Prieberg calls this a protective mythology which Furtwängler created to shield himself from accountability in a real world in which civilizations do fail, in which people are held responsible for their leaders, and in which art cannot be so conveniently isolated from politics. Furtwängler's tragedy was that he had to believe this illusion of permanent German cultural merit in order to justify his life's work. Concludes Prieberg: "Furtwängler sacrificed himself to his own fiction."
> 
> In recent years, we have been regaled by a pathetic parade of aged German artists claiming dewy-eyed ignorance of the Holocaust. Would Furtwängler have been one of these? Other than a few post-war expressions of shame, there is no evidence that he ever took a stand against the awful culmination of his casual tolerance of antisemitism. Indeed, it seems inconceivable that a man who spent so much of his time closely studying political leaders and social trends and successfully manipulating them to his professional benefit could have been genuinely ignorant of this cornerstone of Nazi activity and policy. Or, knowing, did he view the world through artistic blinders and simply not care?
> 
> Speculation as to Furtwängler's state of mind is confusing and inconclusive. Fortunately, though, there is a far more reliable index to his conscience. When we listen to wartime performances by Strauss, Böhm, von Karajan, Krauss, Mengelberg and other Axis amoralists, we hear conductors utterly at peace with themselves, blissfully oblivious to the horrors around them, comfortably nestled in their insular worlds of abstract artistic contentment.
> 
> But Furtwängler's output of the time is of a wholly different dimension, ranging far beyond the bounds of accepted classical tradition, distended by brutally twisted structures, outrageous tempos, jagged phrasing, bizarre balances and violent dynamics. This is simply not the expression of a cold-hearted Nazi. Rather, it clearly and irrefutably signifies a sensitive but deeply troubled man torn by inner conflict and soul-wrenching doubt, constantly on the verge of exploding with torment._


What an excellent piece of balanced writing.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> A long read, but very illuminating, not to mention refreshingly balanced: http://www.classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html
> 
> _Furtwängler did not simply retreat into himself or the sanctum of art. Rather, according to numerous testimonials, he displayed enormous moral courage, constantly placing his life and reputation in jeopardy. For the next decade, he spent much of his time intervening with party officials in nearly impossible tasks of protection and rescue for potential victims who sought his assistance, including strangers and even professional enemies. Although the evidence is often anecdotal, archivist Fred Prieberg claims that his research alone has documented over eighty people at risk who were saved by Furtwängler's efforts.
> 
> While Furtwängler's outward passivity (quashed beneath distorted Nazi news reports) was interpreted abroad as collaboration, we now know that his quiet heroism saved far more lives than abrasive ranting or symbolic emigration. As Paul Minchin, Chairman of the English Furtwängler Society, has aptly observed: "It takes far more courage to oppose a totalitarian regime from within." It is clear that Furtwängler had at least as much courage as the self-proclaimed champions of humanity who branded him a coward but who lobbed all their verbal grenades from the safe harbor of the free world.
> 
> So was Furtwängler a neglected saint? Not quite. There is, unfortunately, a less laudable side to his wartime activities.
> 
> Notwithstanding his courage, Furtwängler did not act out of pure altruism. Nearly everything he did was intended to preserve the integrity of German music. But since Furtwängler considered himself the foremost exemplar of that art, his activity served to solidify his status and gratify his ego. Furtwängler can hardly be compared to Raoul Wallenberg, Oskar Schindler and other heroes who had nothing to gain and acted purely as a matter of conscience, ultimately sacrificing all they had in order to oppose Nazi genocide. Focussed solely on art, Furtwängler simply did not concern himself with the larger social context.
> 
> Even as late as May 1945, Furtwängler did not seem to fully grasp the consequence of Nazi racism. From the geographic and historical perspective of sanctuary in Switzerland, he had ample time to reflect upon the prior decade. His principal concern, though, became a fear that in the aftermath of defeat the now-publicized atrocities would be blamed upon the entire German people, thus unfairly ignoring their cultural greatness and inner nobility. Despite all he had witnessed, Furtwängler simply could not accept that the culture which once had produced Goethe and Beethoven had now rotted into a mire of jackboots and crematoria. Fred Prieberg calls this a protective mythology which Furtwängler created to shield himself from accountability in a real world in which civilizations do fail, in which people are held responsible for their leaders, and in which art cannot be so conveniently isolated from politics. Furtwängler's tragedy was that he had to believe this illusion of permanent German cultural merit in order to justify his life's work. Concludes Prieberg: "Furtwängler sacrificed himself to his own fiction."
> 
> In recent years, we have been regaled by a pathetic parade of aged German artists claiming dewy-eyed ignorance of the Holocaust. Would Furtwängler have been one of these? Other than a few post-war expressions of shame, there is no evidence that he ever took a stand against the awful culmination of his casual tolerance of antisemitism. Indeed, it seems inconceivable that a man who spent so much of his time closely studying political leaders and social trends and successfully manipulating them to his professional benefit could have been genuinely ignorant of this cornerstone of Nazi activity and policy. Or, knowing, did he view the world through artistic blinders and simply not care?
> 
> Speculation as to Furtwängler's state of mind is confusing and inconclusive. Fortunately, though, there is a far more reliable index to his conscience. When we listen to wartime performances by Strauss, Böhm, von Karajan, Krauss, Mengelberg and other Axis amoralists, we hear conductors utterly at peace with themselves, blissfully oblivious to the horrors around them, comfortably nestled in their insular worlds of abstract artistic contentment.
> 
> *But Furtwängler's output of the time is of a wholly different dimension, ranging far beyond the bounds of accepted classical tradition, distended by brutally twisted structures, outrageous tempos, jagged phrasing, bizarre balances and violent dynamics. This is simply not the expression of a cold-hearted Nazi. Rather, it clearly and irrefutably signifies a sensitive but deeply troubled man torn by inner conflict and soul-wrenching doubt, constantly on the verge of exploding with torment.*_


The only problem with this is that Furtwangler's output tended to be like this at any time, war or not. It is a worthy piece of imagination though.

The whole piece just about sums up Furtwangler - not a villain but not a great hero either. Just a naive, vain artist caught up in the horror of a dreadful regime. We might look at Shostokovich and Oistrakh as examples of other artists caught up in Stalin's terror.


----------



## DavidA

MaxKellerman said:


> Obviously the issue has always divided opinion. Yehudi Menuhin from a letter sent to General Robert A. McClure in February 1946:
> 
> "Unless you have secret incriminating evidence against Furtwängler supporting your accusation that he was a tool of Nazi Party, I beg to take violent issue with your decision to ban him. The man never was a Party member. Upon numerous occasions, he risked his own safety and reputation to protect friends and colleagues. Do not believe that the fact of remaining in one's own country is alone sufficient to condemn a man. *On the contrary, as a military man, you would know that remaining at one's post often requires greater courage than running away*. He saved, and for that we are deeply his debtors, the best part of his own German culture.
> 
> *As for quote 'lending an aura of respectability to the Party', are we the Allies not infinitely more guilty and of our own free will by recognising and pactizing with these monsters when almost despite ourselves we were literally dragged and unchivalrously knocked into this struggle*, except of course for Great Britain which declared war before being directly attacked. Remember Munich and Berchtesgaden and all the years when we all wantonly abandoned to their cruel fate every brave and hopeful heart, every valiant and defiant nation. I believe it patently unjust and most cowardly for us to make of Furtwängler a scapegoat for our own crimes.
> 
> If the man is guilty of specific crimes, accuse him and convict him. As far as I can see, it is no punishment to be banned from sordid, filthy Berlin and if the man now old and ill is willing and anxious to return to his exacting task and responsibilities he should be encouraged for that is where he belongs, right in Berlin. If this diseased nation should ever grow up to become a self-respecting member of the community of nations, it will be due to the efforts of men like Furtwängler who have proven that they are able to rescue from the war at least part of their soul. Witness the Berlin Philharmonic. These men alone are able to build on this unsullied base a better society. It is not by stifling such men that you will achieve your aim. Quite the contrary you will only stir up a justifiable resentment against a vandalism as real as the more obvious variety which carves up churches and paintings [...]"


I have always thought Menuhin's post smacks of hopeless idealism. My relatives who were part of the resistance movement in occupied Europe during WW2, some of whom were wanted by the Nazis, found it difficult to sympathise with some of the sentiments. And they were fans of Menuhin's violin playing. Furtwangler was not a Nazi villain - but to try and incriminate the allies in order to exonerate him appears somewhat nonsensical.


----------



## Coach G

DavidA said:


> I have always thought Menuhin's post smacks of hopeless idealism. My relatives who were part of the resistance movement in occupied Europe during WW2, some of whom were wanted by the Nazis, found it difficult to sympathise with some of the sentiments. And they were fans of Menuhin's violin playing.


The comments by Menuhin, as well as, the comments by Bruno Walter, that you rasied earlier are from 1946, only a year after the war had ended. It's impossible that either of them could have known, at that time, all the facts and nuances of the sum total of Furtwangler's behavior during the 12 years that he lived and worked under the Nazi regime.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> The only problem with this is that Furtwangler's output tended to be like this at any time, war or not. It is a worthy piece of imagination though.
> 
> The whole piece just about sums up Furtwangler - not a villain but not a great hero either. Just a naive, vain artist caught up in the horror of a dreadful regime. We might look at Shostokovich and Oistrakh as examples of other artists caught up in Stalin's terror.


Compare his wartime recordings of Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert with his late-career, early-50's VPO studio recordings and you'll immediately see the difference.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

In her autobiography, Furtwängler’s widow Elisabeth wrote that after the facts of the Holocaust came to light after the war, his remark to her was, “We will never be happy again, knowing that our people have done this.”

In his own writings he stated, “There was never a Nazi Germany, only a Germany ruled by Nazis.”

It is clear that he opposed the Nazis. It is also clear that he loved Germany. By all accounts he was anguished and torn throughout those 12 years, probably in denial. And somewhat naively he believed that he from his position of cultural authority could in some way protect the “real” Germany. He was, in short, a committed idealist.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Compare his wartime recordings of Beethoven, Brahms, and Schubert with his late-career, early-50's VPO studio recordings and you'll immediately see the difference.


Yes but then you have to compare his pre-war performances not when he was an old man. As I say I have no problem with Furtwangler, it's just when people make him out to be something he wasn't.


----------



## JAS

A broader question might be if dealing with tragedy directly makes one a better conductor, or it is just a matter of growing older and acquiring wisdom and experience of various kinds?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In her autobiography, Furtwängler's widow Elisabeth wrote that after the facts of the Holocaust came to light after the war, his remark to her was, "We will never be happy again, knowing that our people have done this."
> 
> In his own writings he stated, *"There was never a Nazi Germany, only a Germany ruled by Nazis."
> *
> It is clear that he opposed the Nazis. It is also clear that he loved Germany. By all accounts he was anguished and torn throughout those 12 years, probably in denial. And somewhat naively he believed that he from his position of cultural authority could in some way protect the "real" Germany. He was, in short, a committed idealist.


That is utter idealism. Have you seen the crowds who were adoring Hitler? One is not saying everyone in Germany was a Nazi but there wee many who took him - at least in the beginning - to be the saviour of Germany. Even some like Sophie Scholl and her brother - who later lost their lives opposing Hitler - thought he was a good idea at first.


----------



## DavidA

Coach G said:


> The comments by Menuhin, as well as, the comments by Bruno Walter, that you rasied earlier are from 1946, only a year after the war had ended. It's impossible that either of them could have known, at that time, all the facts and nuances of the sum total of Furtwangler's behavior during the 12 years that he lived and worked under the Nazi regime.


As Walter himself had to flee Nazi persecution he must have known something of what working under them was like.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> As I say I have no problem with Furtwangler, it's just when people make him out to be something he wasn't.


Your problem is that you cannot admit that Furtwängler demonstrated opposition to the Nazis in both word and deed whereas Karajan did not. Herr K was only too happy to cooperate with evil in furtherance of his career. By contrast, for example, Furtwängler was dismissed from his posts for brazenly publishing an article in opposition to Nazi racial policy.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> That is utter idealism. Have you seen the crowds who were adoring Hitler? One is not saying everyone in Germany was a Nazi but there wee many who took him - at least in the beginning - to be the saviour of Germany. Even some like Sophie Scholl and her brother - who later lost their lives opposing Hitler - thought he was a good idea at first.


Fascists tend to be supported by the mob rather than the educated and Fascist leaders tend to fear the educated. Of course, Fascists may often enjoy the support of many well educated and aristocratic people at first but many of them turn away when they have seen how crude and uncontrollable the force they have welcomed really is.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your problem is that you cannot admit that Furtwängler demonstrated opposition to the Nazis in both word and deed whereas Karajan did not. Herr K was only to happy to cooperate with evil in furtherance of his career. By contrast, for example, Furtwängler was dismissed from his posts for brazenly publishing an article in opposition to Nazi racial policy.


I believe he actually resigned from his posts. Furtwangler had a mixed relationship had a mixed relationship with the Nazis. In certain ways he resisted them but in others he compromised. In his post as leader of the Berlin Philharmonic until early in 1945, Furtwängler participated frequently in festivals and concerts in Nazi Germany. From the perspective of the Nazi leadership, as Germany's military situation grew more and more threatening, Furtwängler became increasingly valuable as a cultural ambassador who could promote German music throughout the Axis and occupied lands. Furtwängler toured throughout Europe, despite being boycotted in the Hague and Belgium and protested in many other cities, trying to preserve the reputation of his homeland. I can't see at all what Karajan's activities have todo with a Furtwangler as Karajan was out of favour anyway. We are talking about Furtwangler here. I just cannot see why you cannot accept the evidence of history. Furtwangler was certainly not a Nazis but he was used as a valuable tool by the regime.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Fascists tend to be supported by the mob rather than the educated and Fascist leaders tend to fear the educated. Of course, Fascists may often enjoy the support of many well educated and aristocratic people at first but many of them turn away when they have seen how crude and uncontrollable the force they have welcomed really is.


That unfortunately is now put about by those trying to re-write the history of Germany but sadly it is not always true


----------



## Enthusiast

^ There is more than a grain of truth in it. I don't deny the acceptance of the majority in the middle - people who don't get involved in politics and people who can see the way the wind is blowing and want to benefit from it - but the enthusiasm that made it possible was mostly a disenfranchised mob. We see similar patterns in many countries of the West today.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I just cannot see why you cannot accept the evidence of history. Furtwangler was certainly not a Nazis but he was used as a valuable tool by the regime.


DavidA, reread my posts. I have not only not denied this I have made that point myself! But he did so unwillingly. In fact there are documented cases where he was deceived into doing so.

The reason Karajan comes up is because this entire discussion began as a discussion of the rivalry between the two men. Karajan was only too happy to cooperate with the Nazis whereas Furtwängler was not. That is why the Nazis used Karajan as a pawn to play on Furtwängler's insecurities and try to curb his behavior towards them. Karajan was the young company man threatening the old, opinionated curmudgeon. But we are not talking about any company. We're talking about the worst evil of modern history.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> DavidA, reread my posts. I have not only not denied this I have made that point myself! But he did so unwillingly. In fact there are documented cases where he was deceived into doing so.
> 
> The reason Karajan comes up is because this entire discussion began as a discussion of the rivalry between the two men. Karajan was only too happy to cooperate with the Nazis whereas Furtwängler was not. That is why the Nazis used Karajan as a pawn to play on Furtwängler's insecurities and try to curb his behavior towards them. Karajan was the young company man threatening the old, opinionated curmudgeon. But we are not talking about any company. We're talking about the worst evil of modern history.


Not quite the worst. Mao killed 70 million of his own people in 'peace time'. I can't see why however you must constantly seek to promote Furtwangler in this way. History is history. You can't alter it by your endless arguments. Sorry!


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^ There is more than a grain of truth in it. I don't deny the acceptance of the majority in the middle - people who don't get involved in politics and people who can see the way the wind is blowing and want to benefit from it - but the enthusiasm that made it possible was mostly a disenfranchised mob. We see similar patterns in many countries of the West today.


Sorrry but that is not the way it works


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Not quite the worst. Mao killed 70 million of his own people in 'peace time'. I can't see why however you must constantly seek to promote Furtwangler in this way. History is history. You can't alter it by your endless arguments. Sorry!


What am I altering?


----------



## Coach G

DavidA said:


> As Walter himself had to flee Nazi persecution he must have known something of what working under them was like.


I never said that Walter did not understand life under the Nazi regime. I said that in 1946, Walter (or for that matter, Menuhin) could not have possibly known enough of the evidence concerning _Furtwangler_ and the 12 years that _he_ lived under the Nazi regime.

You say that Furtwangler was neither "hero" nor "villain". I say that it must have taken a lot of courage to stand up to the Nazi regime in any capacity; which is what Furtwangler did if we are to believe one tenth of what has widely circulated concerning Furtwangler's time under probably the most brutal government in the history of the world. The Nazis had the power to have him and any member of his family exterminated at a moment's notice. If I'm wrong, then please tell us what you would have wanted Furtwangler to do that would made him a "hero" in your eyes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Coach G said:


> I never said that Walter did not understand life under the Nazi regime. I said that in 1946, Walter (or for that matter, Menuhin) could not have possibly known enough of the evidence concerning _Furtwangler_ and the 12 years that _he_ lived under the Nazi regime.
> 
> You say that Furtwangler was neither "hero" nor "villain". I say that it must have taken a lot of courage to stand up to the Nazi regime in any capacity; which is what Furtwangler did if we are to believe one tenth of what has widely circulated concerning Furtwangler's time under probably the most brutal government in the history of the world. The Nazis had the power to have him and any member of his family exterminated at a moment's notice. If I'm wrong, then please tell us what you would have wanted Furtwangler to do that would made him a "hero" in your eyes.


Let's talk about courage:

" Friedelind Wagner, the composer's anti-Nazi granddaughter, witnessed a meeting between Hitler and Furtwängler at her mother's Bayreuth home:

I remember Hitler turning to Furtwängler and telling him that he would now have to allow himself to be used by the party for propaganda purposes, and I remember that Furtwängler refused categorically. Hitler flew into a fury and told Furtwängler that in that case there would be a concentration camp ready for him. Furtwängler quietly replied: "In that case, Herr Reichskanzler, at least I will be in very good company." Hitler couldn't even answer, and vanished from the room.[77]"

Again, DavidA, I have seen nothing from you refuting the documented points made, nor presenting much of your own. Your argument essentially boils down to "Stop making Furtwängler out to be a good guy!" I think for the most part I've made it clear as have others that he was a man whose heart was in the right place but who may have been naive.

I say may, because the question that Bruno Walter poses and I as well before you even quoted him has yet to be answered: Was the good that Furtwängler did by lending help within Germany outweighed by the bad in his symbolically supporting the regime by staying there? First of all, I'll mention that some, Horenstein for example, have derided Furtwängler for thinking he was some sort of hero for refusing to give the Nazi salute. But why is this symbolic action any less significant than the symbolic action of staying in Germany? So if we remove the purely symbolic and only look at the concrete, I can't see any other option than exonerating Furtwängler based on the numerous accounts of his saving lives. Could he have done this from abroad? Of course not. He would have been useless fodder helplessly watching Germany destroy itself.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Do you know what? The Nazi regime was a tragedy for very many, and specifically for Germany as a country. I tend to leave it at that, and (apart from the leaders of the regime) don't judge. And even the leaders of the regime probably had underlying issues, traumas, whatever, which drove them to their crimes, which are (of course) unforgivable.
I sometimes imagine that I was in Germany in WW2, and posted to serve in a concentration camp. What would I have done? I don't know. 

If you asked me who to blame, personally I start with Hegel, and drift into Nietzsche and Marx as the villains of the piece - although maybe Marx was a bit misrepresented by Engels. Mainly Hegel, though.


----------



## Knorf

It is with great reluctance that I wade into this thread, mainly because I do not understand the obsession with Furtwängler, either. There are some striking recordings, some very good recordings, some forking weird recordings, and a few too many really poor recordings. But in general there are enough striking or very good recordings to justify his being listed among the great conductors. Enough to justify seeking every last shred of something he might have recorded, owning multiple versions of the same recording because reasons, reflexively recommending Furtwängler as first choice in any repertoire he recorded, and exaggeratedly bashing every rival conductor as obviously inferior? That I just cannot see and do not understand. There are _no_ conductors I feel that way about, certainly not Furtwängler.

But Furtwängler was cleared by the de-Nazification tribunal, as were Karajan and Strauss, among numerous other notable musicians. This was a tribunal that was not especially inclined to let _anyone_ off the hook without good reason. Was it an ethically superior action to leave Germany during the Nazis? I'd argue, absolutely, yes. But leaving your homeland is often much more difficult than it seems. (I wonder at what point I'd leave the USA under Trump...)

So as far as the Nazi collaboration goes, if the de-Nazification tribunal cleared them, I don't see a reason why I should second-guess that decision, especially at such distance from the source, and refuse to enjoy their art.

(ETA: will admit that listening to Furtwängler recordings from when Hitler was, or might have been, in the audience, among other ghouls of that regime, gives me the creeps.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> *reflexively* recommending Furtwängler as first choice in any repertoire he recorded


As someone who has painstakingly spent decades comparing recordings of my favorite repertoire, I must call this out as an unfair, baseless, not to mention wholly ignorant, personal attack. It is okay to disagree. It is not okay to belittle.

There is a difference between disagreeing with one's opinion vs invalidating it. Disagreement means stating where you think the person is wrong and providing support for your differing opinion. Invalidation is where you personally attack the person in a way to supposedly render moot any argument he makes. Clearly that is what you have done in the above.

I have a right to freely state my opinions, and you have a right to freely state yours. If you disagree with mine, specifically do so as opposed to cheap personal swipes such as the above.



Knorf said:


> and exaggeratedly bashing every rival conductor as obviously inferior? That I just cannot see and do not understand.


Who has done that?

However, by the same token, do we not hold some composers such as Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart as superior in their craft? Do we not do the same for pianists and violinists? Why is is out of bounds to do so for conductors?

Again, this is you trying to bully people into agreeing with you instead of respectfully showing your disagreement with the specific points one makes. Without any basis or rationale, you have with a simple personal swipe invalidated anyone preferring Furtwangler recordings or Furtwangler in general as a conductor. Essentially it is a way to assert YOUR personal superiority and avoid having to actually argue the points being made.


----------



## DavidA

Coach G said:


> I never said that Walter did not understand life under the Nazi regime. I said that in 1946, Walter (or for that matter, Menuhin) could not have possibly known enough of the evidence concerning _Furtwangler_ and the 12 years that _he_ lived under the Nazi regime.
> 
> You say that Furtwangler was neither "hero" nor "villain". I say that it must have taken a lot of courage to stand up to the Nazi regime in any capacity; which is what Furtwangler did if we are to believe one tenth of what has widely circulated concerning Furtwangler's time under probably the most brutal government in the history of the world. The Nazis had the power to have him and any member of his family exterminated at a moment's notice. If I'm wrong, then please tell us what you would have wanted Furtwangler to do that would made him a "hero" in your eyes.


My heroes are people like Bonhofer and Sophie Scholl and the people in the resistance in the occupied countries, many of whom lost their lives. And my own father who risked his life aiding their liberation.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> It is with great reluctance that I wade into this thread, mainly because I do not understand the obsession with Furtwängler, either. There are some striking recordings, some very good recordings, some forking weird recordings, and a few too many really poor recordings. But in general there are enough striking or very good recordings to justify his being listed among the great conductors. Enough to justify seeking every last shred of something he might have recorded, owning multiple versions of the same recording because reasons, reflexively recommending Furtwängler as first choice in any repertoire he recorded, and exaggeratedly bashing every rival conductor as obviously inferior? That I just cannot see and do not understand. There are _no_ conductors I feel that way about, certainly not Furtwängler.
> 
> *But Furtwängler was cleared by the de-Nazification tribunal, as were Karajan and Strauss, among numerous other notable musicians. This was a tribunal that was not especially inclined to let anyone off the hook without good reason*. Was it an ethically superior action to leave Germany during the Nazis? I'd argue, absolutely, yes. But leaving your homeland is often much more difficult than it seems. (I wonder at what point I'd leave the USA under Trump...)
> 
> So as far as the Nazi collaboration goes, if the de-Nazification tribunal cleared them, I don't see a reason why I should second-guess that decision, especially at such distance from the source, and refuse to enjoy their art.
> 
> (ETA: will admit that listening to Furtwängler recordings from when Hitler was, or might have been, in the audience, among other ghouls of that regime, gives me the creeps.)


O)ne of the complaints of the survivors of the death camps was that the allies were far too occupied with people like Furtwangler et al who might have played music for the Nazis but in no way committed the atrocities. As it was very few (relatively) who actually committed the terrible atrocities were actually brought to justice and far too many got away scot-free. The de-Nazification of people like Furtwangler, Karajan, etc. was in the long term a distraction from the main purpose of bringing the actual murderers to justice. That is not to say these musicians were guiltless but what they did was nothing compared with what went on in the death camps.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As someone who has painstakingly spent decades comparing recordings of my favorite repertoire, I must call this out as an unfair, baseless, not to mention wholly ignorant, personal attack. It is okay to disagree. It is not okay to belittle.
> 
> There is a difference between disagreeing with one's opinion vs invalidating it. Disagreement means stating where you think the person is wrong and providing support for your differing opinion. Invalidation is where you personally attack the person in a way to supposedly render moot any argument he makes. Clearly that is what you have done in the above.
> 
> I have a right to freely state my opinions, and you have a right to freely state yours. If you disagree with mine, specifically do so as opposed to cheap personal swipes such as the above.
> 
> ...
> 
> Again, this is you trying to bully people into agreeing with you instead of respectfully showing your disagreement with the specific points one makes. Without any basis or rationale, you have with a simple personal swipe invalidated anyone preferring Furtwangler recordings or Furtwangler in general as a conductor. Essentially it is a way to assert YOUR personal superiority and avoid having to actually argue the points being made.


Dearest Brahmsianhorn,

Where in my post, that you accuse of being a "personal attack," "cheap personal swipe," and "bully[ing]," did I mention _you_? Why do you think I was talking about _you_? If you don't do the things I said "I don't understand" (and, note, nothing at all harsher than that,) you're off the hook, aren't you?

Sincerely, your pal,

Knorf


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> Do you know what? The Nazi regime was a tragedy for very many, and specifically for Germany as a country. I tend to leave it at that, and (apart from the leaders of the regime) don't judge. *And even the leaders of the regime probably had underlying issues, traumas, whatever, which drove them to their crimes,* which are (of course) unforgivable.
> I sometimes imagine that I was in Germany in WW2, and posted to serve in a concentration camp. What would I have done? I don't know.
> 
> If you asked me who to blame, personally I start with Hegel, and drift into Nietzsche and Marx as the villains of the piece - although maybe Marx was a bit misrepresented by Engels. Mainly Hegel, though.


An issue called human wickedness. Gobbels wife even murdered her five children before committing suicide.


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> One of the complaints of the survivors of the death camps was that the allies were far too occupied with people like Furtwangler et al who might have played music for the Nazis but in no way committed the atrocities. As it was very few (relatively) who actually committed the terrible atrocities were actually brought to justice and far too many got away scot-free. The de-Nazification of people like Furtwangler, Karajan, etc. was in the long term a distraction from the main purpose of bringing the actual murderers to justice...


I am very sympathetic to this point of view.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Dearest Brahmsianhorn,
> 
> Where in my post, that you accuse of being a "personal attack," "cheap personal swipe," and "bully[ing]," did I mention _you_? Why do you think I was talking about _you_? If you don't do the things I said "I don't understand" (and, note, nothing at all harsher than that,) you're off the hook, aren't you?
> 
> Sincerely, your pal,
> 
> Knorf


Dearest Knorf,

The clear insinuation of your post is that anyone preferring Furtwängler to other conductors is flawed and deficient, whereas you are saintly and open to all conductors.

I happen to favor Furtwängler as a conductor both in general and in most of the German Romantic repertoire. That doesn't ipso facto invalidate my opinion. That doesn't mean I apply reflexive, knee-jerk reaction as opposed to carefully considered exploration over decades.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The clear insinuation of your post is that anyone preferring Furtwängler to other conductors is flawed and deficient, whereas you are saintly and open to all conductors.


I'm sorry, I'm struggling a bit here. How does my saying "I don't understand" clearly lead to this? How is my saying I don't understand mean I think I'm saintly?



> I happen to favor Furtwängler as a conductor both in general and in most of the German repertoire.


You don't say. Huh.

Hadn't noticed.



> That doesn't ipso facto invalidate my opinion. That doesn't mean I apply reflexive, knee-jerk reaction as opposed to carefully considered exploration over decades.


Who said you did? I don't recall mentioning you in the post that so upset you. If I say I don't understand your opinion, that means I am somehow invalidating it? Am I allowed to not understand something? Or just not allowed to say so? Please advise.


----------



## Bulldog

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Dearest Knorf,
> 
> The clear insinuation of your post is that anyone preferring Furtwängler to other conductors is flawed and deficient, whereas you are saintly and open to all conductors.


I'm going to chime in here. I am not into conductors from past or modern decades, so I have no stake in this discussion. Seems to me that Knorf was rather diplomatic in his comments although I sure understand your being peeved at certain works he used.

At the other end, a member earlier in this thread referred to more modern-styled conductors as "time-beaters", an insult of the highest order unless it was stated that they couldn't even beat the time decently.

Furtwangler is a famous conductor; Walter is also. Opinions vary. That's all I have.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Bulldog said:


> I'm going to chime in here. I am not into conductors from past or modern decades, so I have no stake in this discussion. Seems to me that Knorf was rather diplomatic in his comments although I sure understand your being peeved at certain works he used.
> 
> At the other end, a member earlier in this thread referred to more modern-styled conductors as "time-beaters", an insult of the highest order unless it was stated that they couldn't even beat the time decently.
> 
> Furtwangler is a famous conductor; Walter is also. Opinions vary. That's all I have.


Knorf used "reflexive" referring to posters.

I used "time beaters" referring to particular conductors.

I reserve the right to opine on art and artists, not on posters.


----------



## Knorf

Bulldog said:


> I'm going to chime in here. I am not into conductors from past or modern decades, so I have no stake in this discussion. Seems to me that Knorf was rather diplomatic in his comments although I sure understand your being peeved at certain works he used.


Was it "reflexively"? It was, wasn't it? Maybe I should have have used "compulsively." As in, "a poster who compulsively defends very personally even the slightest criticism leveled at his hero." 

The biggest mystery to me is why Brahmsianhorn assumed I meant him. I didn't name anyone, quite deliberately, because I actually wasn't thinking specifically of anyone in this thread. I mean, this is not the only place obsessive nerds like us argue about music.



> Furtwangler is a famous conductor; Walter is also. Opinions vary. That's all I have.


Same here.

Actually, I never understand obsessions with any specific performer, from Furtwängler to Elvis. I know people who obsessively search for copies of every single recording the Beatles made in any context, and in every possible format. Why? I don't get it. I mean, I like the Beatles, too, but..

Of course we all have our own foibles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Knorf used "reflexive" referring to posters.


I guess I must accept using the word "reflexively," even when no specific person was actually mentioned, is such a heinous insult that I should hang my head in shame for having deployed it.



> I reserve the right to opine on art and artists, not on posters.


You do? Hang on, I thought we had to apply for and purchase a permit!

I mean, I've already been notified that mine is under review for using the word... oh my gosh it's so horrid a word I almost can't type it... "reflexively."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

And now we have “obsessively.” I rest my case.

But if I take issue with Karajan on artistic grounds, that gets somehow distorted as a swipe at anyone who might be a Karajan fan. Same with Toscanini, Reiner, et al. That’s baloney. I can admire who I wish and likewise trash who I wish, and so can you.

Again, it’s the difference between disagreement vs invalidation. Say whatever you want about Furtwängler. Call him a slow, lugubrious, portentous windbag who has no idea how to beat time for all I care. Just don’t attack me personally just because I disagree!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And now we have "obsessively.*" I rest my case*.
> 
> But if I take issue with Karajan on artistic grounds, that gets somehow distorted as a swipe at anyone who might be a Karajan fan. Same with Toscanini, Reiner, et al. That's baloney. I can admire who I wish and likewise trash who I wish, and so can you.
> 
> Again, it's the difference between disagreement vs invalidation. Say whatever you want about Furtwängler. Call him a slow, lugubrious, portentous windbag who has no idea how to beat time for all I care. Just don't attack me personally just because I disagree!


I think that might be a good idea


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just don't attack me personally just because I disagree!


Ok, I won't. But note this: I didn't. And I haven't.

The weird thing about all this, is that if one is a fanboy of something, they should forking own that shizz. If someone wants to tell me, "you always reflexively recommend Skrowaczewski" I'd say, "fork yeah, I do! Stan's recordings are awesome!" (I actually don't do that for any conductor, but nevermind. I don't judge.) How sad it would be if we were unable to laugh at our own foibles!

If I decide a poster here is a useless, idiotic git (no, _not you_ Brahmsianhorn; not everything is about you) first of all, I will just put them on ignore and respond to nothing they post, and not mention them again. Second, it won't be because they're obsessed about something in music and have strong opinions. That would be foolish. I can't imagine how someone would be an active member of this forum if they weren't geeky and obsessed about music somehow!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I think that might be a good idea


I know you do. That's why I refuse to do so.


----------



## wkasimer

Hey Becca - 

Aren't you glad you started this topic? :devil:


----------



## Merl

Becca said:


> I should note that while I do have some favourite conductors, there are things that I both like and dislike about all of them so I don't see any as rising above the others.
> 
> * In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...
> View attachment 136028


Returning to the origins of this post, me neither, Becca. However that plane may not be sufficient to extinguish this firestorm.


----------



## Eclectic Al

It is still all Hegel's fault. The tendency in philosophy that ended up in Hitler and Marx (and indeed there is nothing much to choose between Marxists and Fascists) is all about Hegel. And he gets off scot free in this. No one else seems interested!

Leave the conductors alone. If I like A or B (or indeed F or K) it's not about politics. And if you think it is, then grow up.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> Hey Becca -
> 
> Aren't you glad you started this topic? :devil:


Certain topics inevitably become argumentive, with much bickering, and sometimes outright flame wars. I used to be active in the Usenet newsgroups back in the day, such as rec.music.classical, and egad did discussions get heated, and sometimes very personal. And back then almost everyone used their real names!

Furtwängler is a particular flash point, for reasons I can fathom no more than I understand why some people revere him so very highly. This was true 30 years ago in the newsgroups as much as now, or even worse. After all, rec.music.classical was not moderated!

Anyway, I had intended to stay out of this thread, since I cannot explain the fascination with Furtwängler, and I will take my leave of all of you fine music lovers in this thread. I just wanted most to mention that if the de-Nazification tribunal let Furtwängler off, as they did many other German musicians, without new information I don't see the point of beating that very dead horse.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Knorf said:


> Certain topics inevitably become argumentive, with much bickering, and sometimes outright flame wars. I used to be active in the Usenet newsgroups back in the day, such as rec.music.clsssical, and egad did discussions get heated, and sometimes very personal. And back then almost everyone used their real names!
> 
> Furtwängler is a particular flash point, for reasons I can fathom no more than I understand why some people revere him so very highly. This was true 30 years ago in the newsgroups as much as now, or even worse. After all, rec.music.classical was not moderated!
> 
> Anyway, I had intended to stay out of this thread, since I cannot explain the fascination with Furtwängler, and I will take my leave of all of you fine music lovers in this thread. I just wanted most to mention that if the de-Nazification tribunal let Furtwängler off, as they did many other German musicians, without new information I don't see the point of beating that very dead horse.


Leave the musicians alone. Blame the philosophers.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Returning to the origins of this post, me neither, Becca. However that plane may not be sufficient to extinguish this firestorm.
> 
> View attachment 136580


People can have whatever opinion they want about whatever artist. What I don't understand is why some feel the incessant need to resort to:

"It's a cult"
"They are instructed by their elders"
"They reflexively like everything he conducts"

What's so hard to understand about people simply hearing things differently?


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Certain topics inevitably become argumentive, with much bickering, and sometimes outright flame wars. I used to be active in the Usenet newsgroups back in the day, such as rec.music.clsssical, and egad did discussions get heated, and sometimes very personal. And back then almost everyone used their real names!
> 
> Furtwängler is a particular flash point, for reasons I can fathom no more than I understand why some people revere him so very highly. This was true 30 years ago in the newsgroups as much as now, or even worse. After all, rec.music.classical was not moderated!
> 
> Anyway, I had intended to stay out of this thread, since I cannot explain the fascination with Furtwängler, and I will take my leave of all of you fine music lovers in this thread. I just wanted most to mention that if the de-Nazification tribunal let Furtwängler off, as they did many other German musicians, without new information I don't see the point of beating that very dead horse.


Same here, Knorf. I used to be in a few of the old Google groups and there was a particular subset of posters who always started arguments about certain conductors and it used to annoy me. They would never listen to any recording objectively, particularly if it was post 1970s (and even that was a push). There was always a dialogue behind their choices. For some of these people all decent conducting finished in 1954 and for others one certain conductor was considered a small step up from the antichrist. Luckily I got out of these toxic groups and came here and whilst there are some people still stuck in a time warp most posters here are willing to listen to anything regardless of what year it was recorded or by whom. Gladly this site will never go the same way as those (now thankfully defunct) groups. I like difference, I like choice, I like that there are so many knowledgeable people here who I am still learning from (eg Josquin13).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl, one does not need to listen objectively to come to the same conclusions as you do. Sometimes differences of taste and opinion exist without people belonging to the devil for it.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Merl, one does not need to listen objectively to come to the same conclusions as you do. Sometimes differences of taste and opinion exist without people belonging to the devil for it.


I have no problem with differences in taste. I don't like an agenda though and some people have one. We don't agree on some things, BHS, but as the Strauss thread demonstrated we do have some recordings we love in common.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Merl said:


> Returning to the origins of this post, me neither, Becca. However that plane may not be sufficient to extinguish this firestorm.


I sort of misinterpreted the picture. I thought she meant she was going to use the plane to run away once the damage (the arson) is done, and things start to escalate in the thread.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I have no problem with differences in taste. I don't like an agenda though and some people have one. We don't agree on some things, BHS, but as the Strauss thread demonstrated we do have some recordings we love in common.


I appreciate your additions to that thread. I wish I had time to listen to more than just the "acclaimed" versions.


----------



## Gondowe

Hello. I am a very much fan of Furtwangler.
Anybody have some and could share with me or know where I could purchase or download this Furtwangler recordings?

Brahms Symphony 1 BPO 8-2-1952 (Venezia V-1001), Symphony 3 BPO 25 (o19) -4-1951 (FS, GB 2004), Hungarian DAnce Nº3 BPO 1929 (WFJ18)

Furtwangler Symphony 2 Hessischen Rundfunks, Frankfurt 15-12-1952 (GFS TMK 2006)

Handel Concerto Grosso Op6-10 Teatro Colon 2-5-1950 (Refrain o Guild)

Mozart Eine Kleine Freimaurerkantate WPO 25-9-1950, Die Zauberflote Salzburg 16-8-1950 (Delta classics)

Schubert Symphony 9 WPO 18-6-1950 (Refrain o Delta), Rosamunde Entr’acte 3 1929 (ZYX)

Johann Strauss Pizzicato Polka WPO January 1950 (Toshiba)

Richard Strauss Don Juan Stockholm Sep 1942 (Music and Arts CD814)

Wagner Tannhauser Dich teure Halle WSO 13-10-1935

Weber Der Freischutz Overture BPO del 7-12-1952 (Seven seas)

Greetings


----------



## larold

_People can have whatever opinion they want about whatever artist. What I don't understand is why some feel the incessant need to resort to: "It's a cult" " They are instructed by their elders" "They reflexively like everything he conducts" What's so hard to understand about people simply hearing things differently?_

This makes it easier to dismiss him and anyone that likes his musicmaking without listening to and thinking about anything else.


----------



## Flamme

Im not particularly fond of FurtwRangler but even if it is a ''cult'' I would rather be in such ''cult'' than in a political or religious 1...At least I would not lose my mind or sell my soul...


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that Furtwangler's interpretations have very wide dynamic range. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the microphone technology of the time, but his recordings literally "jump out" at you. Also, Furtwangler defines the different lines of the music, making them stand out very clearly.

I still occasionally detect deficiencies in the string sections of those period orchestras; flubbed notes and awkward-sounding high notes at ends of phrases, that make it sound curiously "old-timey" in places. But contrastingly, I think those German horn players might be better than the ones we have today.

And...Mono recordings were not too bad in the 1950's, going right up to early stereo.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

larold said:


> _People can have whatever opinion they want about whatever artist. What I don't understand is why some feel the incessant need to resort to: "It's a cult" " They are instructed by their elders" "They reflexively like everything he conducts" What's so hard to understand about people simply hearing things differently?_
> 
> This makes it easier to dismiss him and anyone that likes his musicmaking without listening to and thinking about anything else.


Or, they listen, don't hear what all the fuss is about, and thus conclude there is some extra-musical explanation for why other people hear it differently. We all have egos, and sometimes in order to protect our ego we feel the need to find deficiencies in those who are different from us.

I grew up hearing (and playing) Beethoven before any other type of music. Tone color, phrasing, rubato...this is all natural to me. Furtwangler fits my aesthetic like a glove. Toscanini sounds more martinet-like in his stricter tempo and more driven approach.

But what if I grew up listening first to rock music with its steady, quick beat? Or playing in marching bands where literally you are being martinets, and so much emphasis is placed on being exactly together? I imagine then Toscanini would sound more natural to me, and I would have a hard time understanding what Furtwangler was doing and why some people like him so much.

We all hear things differently.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Or, they listen, don't hear what all the fuss is about, and thus conclude there is some extra-musical explanation for why other people hear it differently. *We all have egos, and sometimes in order to protect our ego we feel the need to find deficiencies in those who are different from us.*
> 
> I grew up hearing (and playing) Beethoven before any other type of music. Tone color, phrasing, rubato...this is all natural to me. Furtwangler fits my aesthetic like a glove. Toscanini sounds more martinet-like in his stricter tempo and more driven approach.
> 
> But what if I grew up listening first to rock music with its steady, quick beat? Or playing in marching bands where literally you are being martinets, and so much emphasis is placed on being exactly together? I imagine then Toscanini would sound more natural to me, and I would have a hard time understanding what Furtwangler was doing and why some people like him so much.
> 
> We all hear things differently.


That's honest of you!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> That's honest of you!


I agree. From reading this thread, I've learned _so much_ about myself. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

millionrainbows said:


> I think that Furtwangler's interpretations have very wide dynamic range. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the microphone technology of the time, but his recordings literally "jump out" at you. Also, Furtwangler defines the different lines of the music, making them stand out very clearly.


Furtwangler's performances are interesting, and can be exciting...he definitely aims for the high points, the climaxes [a good thing]...sometimes, tho, the lines are smudged - imprecision??, recording technology??



> I still occasionally detect deficiencies in the string sections of those period orchestras; flubbed notes and awkward-sounding high notes at ends of phrases,


Yes, the wartime recordings esp have a fuzzy, wooly quality to them....in part, I'm sure, due to recording technology, but also this quality can be an indication of sloppy ensemble, things not quite together - back stands trailing the front stands, etc....
Recordings by other conductors/orchestras from this period do not display this quality so much - Stokowski, Walter, Toscanini, Rodzinski, Reiner.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

Different priorities

No conductor who puts optimal emphasis on precision is going to give multiple extraneous movements before the ensemble comes in. Furtwängler was aiming for something different.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

millionrainbows said:


> I agree. From reading this thread, I've learned _so much_ about myself. :lol:


Like what for example?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I grew up hearing (and playing) Beethoven before any other type of music. Tone color, phrasing, rubato...this is all natural to me. Furtwangler fits my aesthetic like a glove.....
> Toscanini sounds more martinet-like in his stricter tempo and more driven approach.
> But what if I grew up listening first to rock music with its steady, quick beat? Or playing in marching bands where literally you are being martinets, and so much emphasis is placed on being exactly together? I imagine then Toscanini would sound more natural to me,


Except I never played in a marching band, nor did I obsess over rock groups with its steady, pounding beat, and relentless loud dynamic....and, originally, when my interest in serious music developed, I loved Furtwangler, and rated him above all others I had heard at that point....as I progressed, I became exposed to different approaches, that were effective. 
Now, I prefer Toscanini's approach, overall. It isn't the least bit mere, robotic time-beating. Like Furtwangler, conductors such as Toscanini, Solti, Reiner all realized, and sought out, the drama of the music....all were outstanding opera conductors, and knew well the effectiveness of the rising-falling action, the tension-release of melodic-harmonic development, the dramatic flow of the music....all produced wonderful, intense performances...the main difference seems to be precision, ensemble accuracy, and the extent of flexibility and tempo variation...

For the listener, to each his own....there's great music to be enjoyed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Except I never played in a marching band, nor did I obsess over rock groups with its steady, pounding beat, and relentless loud dynamic....and, originally, when my interest in serious music developed, I loved Furtwangler, and rated him above all others I had heard at that point....as I progressed, I became exposed to different approaches, that were effective.
> Now, I prefer Toscanini's approach, overall. It isn't the least bit mere, robotic time-beating. Like Furtwangler, conductors such as Toscanini, Solti, Reiner all realized, and sought out, the drama of the music....all were outstanding opera conductors, and knew well the effectiveness of the rising-falling action, the tension-release of melodic-harmonic development, the dramatic flow of the music....all produced wonderful, intense performances...the main difference seems to be precision, ensemble accuracy, and the extent of flexibility and tempo variation...
> 
> For the listener, to each his own....there's great music to be enjoyed.


I listened to Beethoven and Brahms for years before I came to know Furtwangler. I always felt something missing in most performances, something a bit too mechanical, and then Furtwangler filled that gap. I still appreciate Toscanini, and recommend his recordings often, but I feel Furtwangler just goes deeper into the place where I feel the music truly resides, the possibilities the music allows for.

For example, Reiner's Scheherazade is very famous. In my 70+ recording review about a year ago on this forum, I stated that for me the issue with his recording was that I didn't hear the spirit of the music, a priority that was absolutely paramount for Furtwangler. It seemed to me that Reiner's recording, dazzling as it is, could have been any piece of music. What about it was specific in feeling to Scheherazade?

Which brings me to my gripe about music education. Too often it seems the emphasis is on a generic process that is applied to all works, when for me the beginning and end of the process is found within each specific, unique work. That should always be the starting point. Probably one of the most gratifying compliments I have ever received is when I sang Bach's _Ich habe genug_ a couple of years ago, and the concertmaster said he was impressed by how I used a different color in each of the five movements. That was gratifying because so often I feel criticized for not having a single color, sound, and technique that I apply to everything. Well, I don't believe in it! I didn't sing _Ich habe genug_ consciously trying to apply a different color here and there. It just happened because I was so immersed in the work. To me that is the ultimate Zen as a performer, when you are immersed in the music and not even thinking about technique. That is when the audience is truly moved.

In a similar vein, while in conducting class in college I was conducting the Allegretto of Beethoven's 7th. I can't remember what I did exactly - I wasn't thinking about it - but I must have wiggled the baton a time or two while giving the initial down beat. The professor stopped me immediately and told me to give a precise up-down beat so that everyone knows when to come in. I did so, but I remember not being happy about it. To me this opening chord is supposed to sound tentative, unsure, contemplative. When I gave the precise beat everyone entered on time, but the particular spirit I was looking for was lost.

THAT is what I hear when I listen to Reiner.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I listened to Beethoven and Brahms for years before I came to know Furtwangler. I always felt something missing in most performances, something a bit too mechanical, and then Furtwangler filled that gap. I still appreciate Toscanini, and recommend his recordings often, but I feel Furtwangler just goes deeper into the place where I feel the music truly resides, the possibilities the music allows for.


OK, that's fine, I just don't see any real evidence that such a "place" necessarily exists. I'm not convinced that every harmonic half-note in Beethoven, Brahms or Wagner is imbued with a cosmic significance. but if you conceive it to be so, fine.....



> For example, Reiner's Scheherazade is very famous. .....It seemed to me that Reiner's recording, dazzling as it is, could have been any piece of music. What about it was specific in feeling to Scheherazade?


I think it portrays most effectively the mystique, the flavor, the grandeur of the Middle East/Orient....the seductive, most endearing solo work, esp of concertmeister Sidney Harth is most appealing.....at least, it works for me.



> ....I used a different color in each of the five movements. That was gratifying because so often I feel criticized for not having a single color, sound, and technique that I apply to everything....... I didn't sing _Ich habe genug_ consciously trying to apply a different color here and there. It just happened because I was so immersed in the work. To me that is the ultimate Zen as a performer,


That's excellent!! that's how it should go!! but, the best musicians use different tone colors, and timbral effects to best perform the music....it shouldn't be a monotone. But the realization/application of different tones and expressive devices does not automatically posit some extra-musical, metaphysical entity. It can be just great musicianship. If belief in an extra-musical thought structure helps you get to fine musical expression, great!! but it isn't a requirement.



> In a similar vein, while in conducting class in college I was conducting the Allegretto of Beethoven's 7th. I can't remember what I did exactly - I wasn't thinking about it - but I must have wiggled the baton a time or two while giving the initial down beat. The professor stopped me immediately and told me to give a precise up-down beat so that everyone knows when to come in. I did so, but I remember not being happy about it. To me this opening chord is supposed to sound tentative, unsure, contemplative. When I gave the precise beat everyone entered on time, but the particular spirit I was looking for was lost.


I understand. You are now talking about conducting technique - how to achieve different orchestral effects - thru attack, release, articulation, accent, etc...this takes practice, and rehearsal...your professor was giving you the straight textbook version, which I agree, was not the effect for which you were striving. 
The greatest cconductors can do it all....example - Solti was famous for wanting razor-sharp attacks, everyone together, bang!! right on the beat!! [this really goes against Middle European style - BPO, VPO, etc] However, when I heard Solti/CSO perform Bruckner 7 in Carnegie Hall - the very beginning was quite magical - the string tremolo "just appeared"...there was silence...and then, at some ethereal point...the sound appeared, no attack, came out of nowhere...quite magical....
There are so many examples of this - Toscanini, Reiner, Solti, Furtwangler, Walter, Monteux, etc - they all can get the orchestra to achieve the right effect... thru clear signals, effective technique. They knew what they wanted to hear, and worked unceasingly to get it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So I decided to look up Reiner on video, and what I see here is pretty much what I detect on recordings: it is precision overkill, like a robot, that to me robs the music of its inner life. Up-down, up-down, up-down...like a martinet. It becomes an exercise in Beethoven as opposed to a portrayal of Beethoven.






By contrast, in this video of Furtwangler we clearly see so much more going on than mere time-beating.






And then in his own version of the Egmont, I hear an actual story being told. I hear not just care and attention to precise ensemble, but to the dramatic narrative. The spirit of the music comes first, the reason we are listening to it in the first place.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So I decided to look up Reiner on video, and what I see here is pretty much what I detect on recordings: it is precision overkill, like a robot, that to me robs the music of its inner life.


no, you simply miss the whole point. use your ears....
Reiner had conducting down to an art:
_*"The best conducting technique is that which achieves the maximum musical result with the minimum effort. The only general rule is to infuse all gestures with precision, clarity, and vitality."*_- Fritz Reiner

Hardly the robotic time-beating of a metronomic kapellmeister...
Reiner could be ultra-espressivo when he chose to - the love music in "Don Juan", the "Pantomime" from "El Amor Brujo", "Bess you is My Woman Now" [Porgy & Bess] - the latter two, esp - just dripping with sensuality - almost, but not quite "schmaltzy"...Reiner always gets it right, so does Monteux....they just had that super musical talent, awareness of style, form, drama etc....and the clarity of technique to communicate it to the orchestra.



> ....in this video of Furtwangler we clearly see so much more going on than mere time-beating.


No, with WF, we see pretty confusing, imprecise gestures which often result in sloppy execution....Furtwangler knew what he wanted, for sure, but, at times, his technique simply lacked the clarity to convey it to the orchestra.

but, hey, I'm not putting down Furtwangler - I've recently listened to several of his performances - mostly war-time - Brahms 2, 3, 4, Beethoven 3, WagnerTristan P & L....these were very good, fun, excellent listening, and most interesting...WF certainly aims for the high points, and succeeds well in hitting them...in between, and in preparation, things can get sloppy, but the orchestra is committed, and these are exciting...I don't always comprehend the tempo changes as he goes along - and it seems like the orchestra sometimes loses him for the first 1 or 2 beats after the abrupt accelerandi or rallentandi...but they find each other, and the show goes on...obviously, WF liked spontaneity, which is fine, but it can result in some pretty sloppy execution - Munch was much the same [for entirely different concept].he would often do things at performance that differed significantly from rehearsal, and it got messy...he loved it!!



> The spirit of the music comes first,


The music itself is the essence...any speculation regarding an extra-musical, mystical, metaphysical structure, above and beyond the music itself is purely conjectural. If you choose to believe in such extra-musical construct, far be it from me to convince you otherwise...but it certainly is not requisite to produce great music...

Toscanini's famous quote is right on the $$:
regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"
*"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."*
Arturo Toscanini


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> no, you simply miss the whole point. use your ears....


Heck, I used the videos to CONFIRM what I have been already hearing with my ears.



Heck148 said:


> No, with WF, we see pretty confusing, imprecise gestures which often result in sloppy execution....Furtwangler knew what he wanted, for sure, but, at times, *his technique simply lacked the clarity to convey it to the orchestra*.


The mistake you are making here is not understanding that Furtwangler was getting exactly what he wanted from the orchestra.

From "The Devil's Music Master":

"Actually Furtwangler's baton technique could be as clear as, say, Fritz Reiner's or even Nikisch's, but his fuzziness of beat was purposefully calculated to a great extent; constant, absolute unison of ensemble was not necessarily his primary objective. The clarity and depth of tonal mass was usually of far greater importance than mere lucidity of beat. Thus bold chords, such as those starting the Eroica, frequently took on a slightly arpeggiated quality under his direction while still maintaining their lightning rhythmic impact. Those weaned on the spit-bang rigors of certain other conductors such as Toscanini would always find such an approach utterly incomprehensible. But the legions who would come to understand it would also learn to feel its rightness."

Hugh Bean says precisely the same thing at the beginning of this clip:






I made this point myself in my opening to the thread on Furtwangler recordings:

Best and Worst Recordings: Furtwängler



Heck148 said:


> The music itself is the essence...any speculation regarding an extra-musical, mystical, metaphysical structure, above and beyond the music itself is purely conjectural. If you choose to believe in such extra-musical construct, far be it from me to convince you otherwise...but it certainly is not requisite to produce great music...
> 
> Toscanini's famous quote is right on the $$:
> regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"
> *"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."*
> Arturo Toscanini


How can what is deep inside the music be "extra-musical?" That is nonsensical. I completely disagree with you here, and so did Furtwangler.

Simply following the written instructions in the score is NOT faithfully performing great music. To really do it justice, you must internalize it - why it was written, what the composer was aiming for, why it touches us. You must discover the INNER ESSENCE that causes the music to form a connection with the audience. Once you experience music on this level, you can never go back to the mundane world of a Toscanini.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, I used the videos to CONFIRM what I have been already hearing with my ears.


Except the videos DO NOT confirm what you claim they do....Reiner is not an robotic automaton, and Furtwangler is often imprecise and sloppy. stop deluding yourself.



> The mistake you are making here is not understanding that Furtwangler was getting exactly what he wanted from the orchestra.


Negative, no mistake, I know what WF's approach was, and what he was trying to achieve....Precision and accuracy was not his priority...but it is wrong to discount it completely, or largely.



> From "The Devil's Music Master":
> "Actually Furtwangler's baton technique could be as clear as, say, Fritz Reiner's or even Nikisch's, but his fuzziness of beat was purposefully calculated to a great extent; constant, absolute unison of ensemble was not necessarily his primary objective. The clarity and depth of tonal mass was usually of far greater importance than mere lucidity of beat.


Fine, but other conductors get "The clarity and depth of tonal mass" and manage to achieve precision and accuracy at the same time.


> Thus bold chords, such as those starting the Eroica, frequently took on a slightly arpeggiated quality under his direction


 and end up sounding rather mushy, fuzzy.
Listen to the lightning bolt shots that Reiner gets with those opening chords!! unbelievable wallop, impact [remember, no low brass, only timps for percussion] He trained his orchestra to do it.



> How can what is deep inside the music be "extra-musical?" That is nonsensical. I completely disagree with you here, and so did Furtwangler.


You are positing something here for which there is NO evidence....deep inside the music?? meaningless...you are pre-assuming that there is some extra-musical, mystical, or metaphysical philosophic structure that is above and beyond the music, which is, after all, only sound...If you want to believe, want to make the "leap of faith", fine, go for it....but there is NO empirical or scientific evidence of any such extra-musical entity. positing any such thing does not put you or anyone else on any higher level of musical understanding from other music listeners.



> Simply following the written instructions in the score is NOT faithfully performing great music.


Strawman, meaningless...nobody has advocated this....the score provides the "script", the pitchs, in time, to be played....it is to the performer to find the phrases, the structure, the flow, the drama....there is no metaphysical "reality" to be grasped....



> To really do it justice, you must internalize it


Does_ internalizing_ exclude accuracy and faithfulness to the score??



> You must discover the INNER ESSENCE that causes the music to form a connection with the audience.


Sure, that's what's in the score...play what's written, find the flow, the phrases. there is no need for an outside, extra-musical philosophical structure that reveals some "secrets of creation"....the score is the creation.....play it.



> Once you experience music on this level, you can never go back to the mundane world of a Toscanini.


 Furtwangler is good - his performances are powerful, expressive, he obviously knew what he wanted....but it's pretty sloppy.
I want it all - the power, the drama, the expression, with the precision, without the metaphysical baggage. Once you hear that great drama, power and expression can be achieved, along with precision, accuracy and rhythmic impact, you will embrace the fabulous musical world of Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Szell, etc....

I like


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck, if there was no universal truth, Beethoven would have no appeal in the first place. According to Toscanini, simply accurately putting the pen to the paper was all Beethoven needed to do to create great music. Of course that is nonsense. Inspiration was needed, intelligence, understanding what connects us all spiritually.

A performer who simply gives us the nuts and bolts of the score in perfect clarity is merely approximating genius. A performer who digs deeper is giving us the real thing.

This documentary at 17:30 is directly on point.

"He has been criticized for imprecision. The criticism is justified, but the evaluation isn't."


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> According to Toscanini, simply accurately putting the pen to the paper was all Beethoven needed to do to create great music. Of course that is nonsense.


Actually, I think that Toscanini had something there. I've often thought the the difference between music that is great and music that is merely very good is that the former is worth hearing regardless of the performance, and the latter needs a stronger interpretive hand.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Actually, I think that Toscanini had something there. I've often thought the the difference between music that is great and music that is merely very good is that the former is worth hearing regardless of the performance, and the latter needs a stronger interpretive hand.


I agree with that statement. There are hundreds of Beethoven symphony recordings that, were they all we knew of Beethoven, would still be very appealing. Such is the extent of Beethoven's genius.

What we are talking about here is a matter of degree - experiencing Beethoven on a more mundane level vs a level that at least approaches the full extent of what the music has to offer. I believe it was Schnabel who said Beethoven's music was better than it can ever be played.

If I never heard Furtwangler, I would still love Beethoven. I have been playing Beethoven on the piano since I was a little kid. The question of this thread is why should any of us apologize for wanting to hear great music played at the highest, deepest, most revealing level possible? Why aim for the mere pedantic and mundane? The entire reason I got into music was to participate in the endless search for the ultimate in music performance.

Heck believes that there is no such thing as ultimate truth worth pursuing. There is nothing new to discover. Just play the notes.

He is wrong about that.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...
> 
> Heck believes that there is no such thing as ultimate truth worth pursuing. There is nothing new to discover. Just play the notes.
> 
> He is wrong about that.


From what little I know about music, I would suggest that there is a great difference between "playing the notes" and "playing the music." I would prefer that one not "just play the notes," but that he/she would "just play the music."

In any case, I would rather _hear_ the music rather than just hear the notes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

SONNET CLV said:


> From what little I know about music, I would suggest that there is a great difference between "playing the notes" and "playing the music." I would prefer that one not "just play the notes," but that he/she would "just play the music."
> 
> In any case, I would rather _hear_ the music rather than just hear the notes.


Same difference in my book. What we are talking about is a refusal to partake in an individual emotional, spiritual, intellectual, philosophical engagement into the spirit behind the composition. Refusing to put yourself into the composer's mind. Refusing to think about why the music connects to the audience and incorporating this into your rendering of the score. Eschewing the road of Zenful discovery where it is like the music is being composed as you are performing it.

Just playing the music only gets you so far. There is so much more.

A couple of examples:

In cultivation of his IMO unsurprassed interpretation of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto, Bronislaw Huberman traveled through Bohemia to internalize the gypsy style. Similarly, the great turn of the century Carmen, Emma Calve, travelled to Spain to incorporate local custom into her characterization of the role.

Were Huberman and Calve just wasting their time? According to Toscanini/Heck they were. Just play the music. It speaks for itself.

Both in my decades of listening and of performing, I can categorically say it is false to say that merely "knowing music" is enough. You have to know life.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ultimate truth worth pursuing


I think this might be what it really comes down to. Among conductors, the "literalists" (I don't believe there's such thing, but that's what they are branded as), embodied most prominently by Toscanini, Weingartner, Szell, Reiner, and Boulez the conductor and which spirit dominates most of today's conductors; think the ultimate truth is no deeper than the notes on the page. Truth is embodied entirely in the simple physical material of what the composer wrote, and the performer's duty is simply to execute it as perfectly as possible. While, what some people call the "interventionists" (another term I disagree with) dominated by Furtwangler, with that influence shared by Walter, Mengelberg, Barbirolli, Celibidache, Bernstein, and a choice few today like Rattle and Gergiev; think that there is a deeper truth being conveyed beneath the surface of the score. They aimed to inspire a spirit of artistic integrity and exploration in their orchestras so that the ultimate goal was not merely "perfect playing" or "obeying all the details of the score", but engaging in a sacred communal experience that is part of the higher quest for the true, the good, and the beautiful. That spirit lies at the center of my personal worldview, so it's why I connect with these "interventionists" so much, and why, for example, when I first heard the Furtwangler/Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, I knew I had stumbled across a performance that plumbed so many more depths than I had ever thought could be reached in that symphony. Beethoven wrote the 9th in search of an idealistic bond between all humanity, and I hear that bond conveyed most convincingly with Furtwangler. Even in the first three movements where it's just pure abstract music, I can still hear that deep sacred bond. I participate in artistic experiences to find out what's worth living for. Others' mileages may vary.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, if there was no universal truth, Beethoven would have no appeal in the first place.


I'm not getting into a discussion over the existence of "universal truth", metaphysical spirit of the music, or the existence of god for that matter....it's a dead end, cul-de-sac.
If you choose to believe, if you make the "leap of faith", fine, that works for you....but belief in such entities is in NO WAY a requirement for producing great musical performances



> According to Toscanini, simply accurately putting the pen to the paper was all Beethoven needed to do to create great music.


yup - you are correct - putting the pen to the paper is what we've got.



> Inspiration was needed, intelligence, understanding what connects us all spiritually.


Right, Beethoven was a genius...what he put on paper is evidence of that genius.



> A performer who simply gives us the nuts and bolts of the score in perfect clarity is merely approximating genius.


Irrelevant and not germane to the discussion. None of the great conductors/performers merely give us just "the nuts and bolts of the score"...of course, the score does indicate rhythms, sounds to be produced in time - accurately....now, if a conductor fails to provide the precision, the accuracy, those essential "nuts and bolts" of the score, is that simply "approximating genius"??



> A performer who digs deeper is giving us the real thing.


"digs deeper" into what?? some fictitious entity that you imagine to exist??
again, I've no intention of discussing your "leap of faith". if it works for you, great. I'll go by what I actually hear....WF is good, always dramatic, interesting...warts and all.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck believes that there is no such thing as ultimate truth worth pursuing. There is nothing new to discover. Just play the notes. He is wrong about that.


That is incorrect....music, the sounds, do not posess, are not imbued with any particular metaphysical properties of significance. Your assumption of such existence, such "truth", is not based on any empirical or scientific evidence....it is a "leap of faith" for you to assume such a thing, fine....I do not make that leap of faith...the score is the "truth"...it expresses the genius of the creator. 
What is the "ultimate truth" of Brahms Symphony #3??


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ..... when I first heard the Furtwangler/Bayreuth Beethoven 9th, I knew I had stumbled across a performance that plumbed so many more depths than I had ever thought could be reached in that symphony.


I used to think that, when I first got into serious music...I outgrew it, as I found that other approaches were just as expressive, if not more so, and were much more honest to the score, and more accurately performed...
I'm not putting Furtwangler down, he was a great conductor, a powerful musical personality, for sure....I just don't buy into all of the supposed extra-musical, metaphysical stuff....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Right, Beethoven was a genius...what he put on paper is evidence of that genius.


The difference is that Toscanini treated Beethoven as a god to be strictly, unthinkingly obeyed.

Furtwangler treated Beethoven as a mortal in search of the divine, and that as performers we are all partaking in that journey with him, not underneath him.

In other words, it is a collaborative effort of discovery between the composer, the performer, and the audience. Beethoven's music is thus continually living, breathing, and _searching_. It is not merely a stale, dusty museum relic to be performed as if it represents a perfect end in and of itself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> What is the "ultimate truth" of Brahms Symphony #3??


It is the indefinable quality that makes us enjoy the experience of listening to it. Otherwise, how do you explain its appeal?


----------



## Knorf

Two problems:

1.) _The assumption that this "universal truth", "ultimate truth", or "deeper truth" is somehow an objective entity, just waiting to be discovered like some astronomical phenomenon. _100% absolute tosh. Every observer/listener has only their own subjective experience. It will include associations with various tropes that resonate in sympathy with others, but these associations, emotional or otherwise, are enculturated and not innate to art. They are brought to it by subjective experience, some shared, but just as much if not more novel to the specific observer/listener. Anyone who says otherwise is being narcissistic, plain and simple, in that they irrationally elevate the "truth" of their own opinions and experience to an unwarranted and frankly quite ignorant degree.

2.) _The assumption that the only path to this "deeper truth" is via an elevated degree of creative action imposed by an interpreter._ Again, utter tosh. It is absolutely equally valid to say the "deeper truth" is revealed only when the interpreter remains as transparent in the transmission of art as possible, and does not interpolate their own subjectivity between the original creator and recipients. In other words, that the imposition of conductorly personality "muddies" access the composer's original "deeper truth." (Of course really it's all on a continuum and no one at all has access to anything like a pseudo-objective concept of "deeper truth.")

Language about Furtwängler alone having exceptional access to some farcical "deeper truth" is why Furtwängler adherents get compared to cultists, especially in the context of repeated statements that they (Furtwängler fans) alone have encountered this "deeper truth," via their apostle, and that detractors, or the skeptical, are missing out on this "truth."

To be frank, it's often enough a pretty fair comparison, one that is observable within this very thread: notice the fervent testimonials about having supposedly not really heard or understood a composer, and so on, before hearing Furtwängler, as well as the breathless efforts to evangelize others to come to this "deeper truth." Such rhetoric does well to reinforce this comparison; it comes across as witnessing.

No one thinks Furtwängler fans are _actually_ cultists, but some sure the heck act a lot like them.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In cultivation of his IMO unsurprassed interpretation of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto, Bronislaw Huberman traveled through Bohemia to internalize the gypsy style. Similarly, the great turn of the century Carmen, Emma Calve, travelled to Spain to incorporate local custom into her characterization of the role.
> 
> Were Huberman and Calve just wasting their time?


A metaphor: some actors use what is known as "method acting," that is, an exceptionally deep immersion in the circumstances and details of character's life, to get at their craft. Some actors have other techniques. Method acting is not a waste of time, but neither is it inherently superior to alternatives.



> According to Toscanini/Heck they were [wasting their time.]


You're putting words into Heck148's mouth, here. He did not say they were wasting their time, nor imply it.


----------



## DavidA

Knorf said:


> A metaphor: some actors use what is known as "method acting," that is, an exceptionally deep immersion in the circumstances and details of character's life, to get at their craft. Some actors have other techniques. *Method acting is not a waste of time, but neither is it inherently superior to alternatives. *


Or as Lawrence Olivier Is supposed to have said to Dustin Hoffman, "Try acting, dear boy!"


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> Or as Lawrence Olivier Is supposed to have said to Dustin Hoffman, "Try acting, dear boy!"


Haha, good one.

I can just imagine Toscanini telling Furtwängler, "try conducting, dear boy!" :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf, I never said some opinions are superior to others. Universal truth is by definition perceivable by everyone. It is communal, not individual. 

One of the biggest milestones in human history was monotheism. The central tenet was that truth is not handed down to us from rulers, i.e. authority figures waving the biggest stick. Instead, truth is invisible, infinite, and existing within each of us. This later evolved into democracy, whereby collectively we as human beings come to agreement on questions of justice.

NONE of this is about one person being an authority figure we blindly follow. EXACTLY the opposite. Furtwangler was not a god. He was an inspired visionary who invited people to follow him along his journey. Whether you want to is entirely up to you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> You're putting words into Heck148's mouth, here. He did not say they were wasting their time, nor imply it.


I'm sorry, doesn't Heck imply if not outright state that as Toscanini said, everything you need is in the written score and anything else is "extra-musical?" Apologies if I misread his words.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Knorf, I never said some opinions are superior to others. Universal truth is by definition perceivable by everyone. It is communal, not individual.
> 
> One of the biggest milestones in human history was monotheism. The central tenet was that truth is not handed down to us from rulers, i.e. authority figures waving the biggest stick*. Instead, truth is invisible, infinite, and existing within each of us*. This later evolved into democracy, whereby collectively we as human beings come to agreement on questions of justice.
> 
> NONE of this is about one person being an authority figure we blindly follow. EXACTLY the opposite. Furtwangler was not a god. He was an inspired visionary who invited people to follow him along his journey. Whether you want to is entirely up to you.


The theory that truth is invisible, infinite and exists within each of us is not a central tenet of monotheism


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm sorry, doesn't Heck imply if not outright state that as Toscanini said, everything you need is in the written score and anything else is "extra-musical?" Apologies if I misread his words.


I'll let him respond, and not put words into his mouth.

For myself, if I may continue the metaphor: some actors need to use method acting, some don't. Those who need to use it are not wasting their time just because others don't need it.

Or, to use music. Some pianists have to practice 8 hours a day. Some only 6. Those who have to practice 8 are not wasting 2 hours of their time every day because someone else only needs 6. Nor is the one who needs only 6 superior to the one who needs 8. All that matters in the end is the music they make. There is no single path to making music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The theory that truth is invisible, infinite and exists within each of us is not a central tenet of monotheism


It absolutely is. An invisible, not tangible God, with whom we each have a personal relationship and whose truths are beyond the realm of any earthly authority.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> There is no single path to making music.


I never said there was, just like there are many paths to universal truth. That is entirely different from denying it exists. My belief is that no one has a monopoly on truth, not me, not you, not Beethoven, not Furtwängler, not Toscanini.

I keep repeating this over and over, and you keep (ironically) misquoting me.

If anyone between Furtwängler and Toscanini fashioned himself as the ultimate authority on objective truth....it wasn't the former...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It absolutely is. An invisible, not tangible God, with whom we each have a personal relationship and whose truths are beyond the realm of any earthly authority.


I'm afraid saying his truth lives within each of us is not right. Truth lies in God and his word. In Judaism and Christianity God is tangible


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never said there was, just like there are many paths to universal truth. That is entirely different from denying it exists. My belief is that no one has a monopoly on truth, not me, not you, not Beethoven, not Furtwängler, not Toscanini.
> 
> I keep repeating this over and over, and you keep (ironically) misquoting me.
> 
> If anyone between Furtwängler and Toscanini fashioned himself as the ultimate authority on objective truth....it wasn't the former...


Get you keep insisting that Furtwangler is the way to truth. The problem is you can't see it and everybody else can


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Get you keep insisting that Furtwangler is the way to truth. The problem is you can't see it and everybody else can


That's ridiculous. Even Furtwängler wouldn't say that as his interpretations kept changing.

I do believe Furtwängler got closer to the truth in Beethoven's music than anyone else on record. What's wrong with saying that? I'm not entitled to that opinion?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's ridiculous. Even Furtwängler wouldn't say that as his interpretations kept changing.
> 
> I do believe Furtwängler got closer to the truth in Beethoven's music than anyone else on record. What's wrong with saying that? I'm not entitled to that opinion?


You are entitled to your opinion but you tend to speak of it as a kind of cultish fact rather than opinion. That is what people notice and remark on


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> You are entitled to your opinion but you tend to speak of it as a kind of cultish fact rather than opinion. That is what people notice and remark on


Give it a rest, will you? Regardless of whether you think that it's true or not, your repetition is really quite tiresome.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I keep repeating this over and over, and you keep (ironically) misquoting me.


Incorrect. If I quoted you, like just now, it was always verbatim. No exceptions.

I did do some paraphrasing, but relatively little of it was specifically from you. That was intentional. If I paraphrase your words speficially, I will name you specifically. I have not done so in this thread.



> If anyone between Furtwängler and Toscanini fashioned himself as the ultimate authority on objective truth....it wasn't the former...


Last I checked, this thread wasn't about the egos of those two great conductors (gigantic in both cases), but rather why some Furtwängler fans-almost uniquely for that specific conductor-are so fascinated with him, to degree that borders on the obsessive. But the truth is, the object of fanatic interest (hence the derivation of the word "fan") is often inscrutable to those outside of the specific fandom.

I'm a fan of the greatest football team the world has ever seen, Arsenal. But I don't except people who aren't sports fans to understand my borderline obsession with all things Arsenal.


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> Give it a rest, will you? Regardless of whether you think that it's true or not, your repetition is really quite tiresome.


Well don't read it then if you feel that way.


----------



## Itullian

Maybe the era in which he lived? His conducting style? (the way his body seems possessed with the music)
Maybe his interpretations? He delves deeply into the music which he doesn't always conduct the same way, but it usually works?


----------



## wkasimer

DavidA said:


> Well don't read it then if you feel that way.


The logic of this suggestion escapes me, unless you're suggesting that I stop reading everything that you write.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You are entitled to your opinion but you tend to speak of it as a kind of cultish fact rather than opinion. That is what people notice and remark on


My opinion is just an opinion just like everyone else's. It could literally change any moment. What I feel on my end is that you keep telling me I don't have a right to state it simply because it conflicts with yours.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

A quick word about Toscanini. I object much more to what he stood for than I do Toscanini the musician. The reality is that Toscanini did not view music as just marks on a page. He knew there was more to Beethoven than just that, and it is obvious from his recordings. I just think he was a bit metronomic for my taste. To each their own. That doesn't mean I fail to get enjoyment from, for example, his 1939 Eroica, 1933 5th, or 1936 7th. In reality, Toscanini was every bit the subjectivist. I honestly think his protestation that he was objectively following the score was more about believing his way was the "right way" than anything else.

But you cannot tell me a man who stood firmly against Fascism did not believe in universal truth above human authority. Or who went to Palestine to aid Jewish musicians starting up what eventually became the Israel Philharmonic. Toscanini was more about firm, clearly stated convictions, whereas Furtwangler, just as passionately, came to his convictions via a circular, harder to understand route.

Furtwangler and Toscanini were both imposing personalities the likes of which we have not seen since. It is a shame we don't have more like them today.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The difference is that Toscanini treated Beethoven


Baloney.....
Since you persist in this inanity that the literalists are _merely tapping out notes, robotic time-beaters_ devoid of any musical expression [an absolutely idiotic, unsupportable premise] then the counter argument must be presented -

the literalists are the adherents to the "universal truth" - they go by what is in the score...they abide by, and recognize the composer's intent, as expressed thru the written score, which is, indisputably, the true source.

the Furtwangler-ites have no connection with any "universal truth"....they simply substitute their own personal inclinations and obsessions in place of the composer's, with nearly total disregard for the actual score itself, as they pursue some "pie in the sky", extra-musical, metaphysical mullarkey which has little or nothing to do with what the composer actually penned.
We aren't hearing Beethoven''s 3rd, or Brahms 4th, we are hearing Furtwangler's 3rd, furtwangler's 4th....

any time you post the <<literalists as mere time-beater nonsense>>, I'm going to counter with the <<furtwangler = gross distortionist, violator of musical truth>> argument...

Now - answer the question please - 
What is the "universal truth" of Brahms Sym #3??


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> Maybe the era in which he lived? His conducting style? (the way his body seems possessed with the music)
> Maybe his interpretations? He delves deeply into the music which* he doesn't always conduct the same way*, but it usually works?


Of course it is true of many conductors that they conduct works differently on different occasions. Listening to Karajan's Eroicas they are all different. I think this aspect of Furtwangler has maybe been emphasised when it is a characteristic of many conductors.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is the indefinable quality


NOPE, you've got to do way better than that....you keep referring to the spirit, the underlying motivation, the purpose, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah...let's hear it...



> how do you explain its appeal?


It sounds good when the musicians present the score. :devil::lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Baloney.....
> Since you persist in this inanity that the literalists are _merely tapping out notes, robotic time-beaters_ devoid of any musical expression [an absolutely idiotic, unsupportable premise] then the counter argument must be presented -
> 
> the literalists are the adherents to the "universal truth" - they go by what is in the score...they abide by, and recognize the composer's intent, as expressed thru the written score, which is, indisputably, the true source.
> 
> the Furtwangler-ites have no connection with any "universal truth"....they simply substitute their own personal inclinations and obsessions in place of the composer's, with nearly total disregard for the actual score itself, as they pursue some "pie in the sky", extra-musical, metaphysical mullarkey which has little or nothing to do with what the composer actually penned.
> We aren't hearing Beethoven''s 3rd, or Brahms 4th, we are hearing Furtwangler's 3rd, furtwangler's 4th....
> 
> any time you post the <<literalists as mere time-beater nonsense>>, I'm going to counter with the <<furtwangler = gross distortionist, violator of musical truth>> argument...
> 
> Now - answer the question please -
> What is the "universal truth" of Brahms Sym #3??


1) Did you read my last post?
2) I already answered your question about the Brahms 3rd as well


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> NOPE, you've got to do way better than that....you keep referring to the spirit, the underlying motivation, the purpose, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah...let's hear it...
> 
> It sounds good when the musicians present the score. :devil::lol:


How do you explain Furtwängler's enduring popularity?

Again, google "best Beethoven conductor" and the first three results are Karajan, Furtwängler, and Bernstein. Hardly representative of the objective school.

The question is not whether popularity is necessarily indicative of worth. The question is what accounts for it in this case?


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Two problems:
> 
> 1.) _The assumption that this "universal truth", "ultimate truth", or "deeper truth" is somehow an objective entity, just waiting to be discovered like some astronomical phenomenon. _100% absolute tosh.
> 
> 2.) _The assumption that the only path to this "deeper truth" is via an elevated degree of creative action imposed by an interpreter._ Again, utter tosh.





> Language about Furtwängler alone having exceptional access to some farcical "deeper truth" is why Furtwängler adherents get compared to cultists, especially in the context of repeated statements that they (Furtwängler fans) alone have encountered this "deeper truth," via their apostle, and that detractors, or the skeptical, are missing out on this "truth."......
> 
> ....No one thinks Furtwängler fans are _actually_ cultists, but some sure the heck act a lot like them.


Excellent...Very well said...I was avoiding bringing up the "cult" thing"....thank you!!


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A quick word about Toscanini. I object much more to what he stood for than I do Toscanini the musician. The reality is that Toscanini did not view music as just marks on a page. He knew there was more to Beethoven than just that, and it is obvious from his recordings.


I quite agree, actually: one of the observations that tells me "universal truth" in music is nothing more than a chimera.



> I just think he was a bit metronomic for my taste. To each their own.


Again, I agree. _De gustibus non est disputandum._

For my taste, Furtwängler was sometimes _too_ wayward with tempo, too sloppy, and borderline undisciplined. But please know, I'm not much of a Toscanini fan, either. Many of his interpretations to me are excessively harsh.

For conductors of that generation (more or less), I think you and I can agree about Klemperer and Walter, along others. Erich Kleiber, for me, way underrated.



> In reality, Toscanini was every bit the subjectivist. I honestly think his protestation that he was objectively following the score was more about believing his way was the "right way" than anything else.


I mean, you're not wrong.



> Furtwangler and Toscanini were both imposing personalities the likes of which we have not seen since. It is a shame we don't have more like them today.


To be fair, they were pretty rare individuals even then.

But I assure you, there are plenty of massive egos working in music today. Some are even nearly matched by their talent...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A quick word about Toscanini. I object much more to what he stood for than I do Toscanini the musician. The reality is that Toscanini did not view music as just marks on a page. He knew there was more to Beethoven than just that, and it is obvious from his recordings. I just think he was a bit metronomic for my taste. To each their own. That doesn't mean I fail to get enjoyment from, for example, his 1939 Eroica, 1933 5th, or 1936 7th. In reality, Toscanini was every bit the subjectivist. I honestly think his protestation that he was objectively following the score was more about believing his way was the "right way" than anything else.
> 
> But you cannot tell me a man who stood firmly against Fascism did not believe in universal truth above human authority. Or who went to Palestine to aid Jewish musicians starting up what eventually became the Israel Philharmonic. Toscanini was more about firm, clearly stated convictions, whereas Furtwangler, just as passionately, came to his convictions via a circular, harder to understand route.
> 
> *Furtwangler and Toscanini were both imposing personalities the likes of which we have not seen since. It is a shame we don't have more like them today.*


We couldn't have them today any more than we could have a Karajan. The world is different.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Excellent...Very well said...I was avoiding bringing up the "cult" thing"....thank you!!


You know what I say, if you're a fan of something, forking own it. But have a sense of humor about it. It's when one is a fan, but has no sense of humor about their fandom, that they can start to come across a bit cultish.

For example, if someone, say some sad Tottenham fan full of regret about their empty trophy room, disses the mighty Arsenal FC, I know they're just talking smack. There's zero reason to take it personally. And I freaking _love_ Arsenal. There's a reason we Arsenal fans embrace the term "Gooner" (best pronounced with a North London accent.)


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....doesn't Heck imply if not outright state that as Toscanini said, everything you need is in the written score and anything else is "extra-musical?"


I neither said nor implied that. the score is the blueprint, the play script - to be actualized by the performer....actualization meaning all of the expressive indications....
to merely pop out notes in the correct sequence would have no more musical value than a typist copying a legal form letter...in such exercise, expressive input is totally unnecessary, unwelcome, even....performance of music, communicating with the audience depends completely on the expressive input to convey the musical ideas on the page.
but communicating with the audience can be done very effectively without apprehension of or mystical union with some imaginary metaphyisical, ultimate "universal turth"


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> For example, if someone, say some sad Tottenham fan full of regret about their empty trophy room, disses the mighty Arsenal FC, I know they're just talking smack. There's zero reason to take it personally. And I freaking _love_ Arsenal. There's a reason we Arsenal fans embrace the term "Gooner" (best pronounced with a North London accent.)


Your first game back is against the mighty Blues. Should be interesting. However football isn't as good as it used to be, when half the footballers smoked and ate pies all day. Football then was played with passion, etc.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

If deriding an opinion over music different from yours as indicative of a "cult" makes you feel superior in your opinion, more power to you.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How do you explain Furtwängler's enduring popularity?


how do you explain Toscanini's?? and his lasting domination of present day conducting performance practice??



> Again, google "best Beethoven


BBWWAAAHHAAAAHHHAAAA!! Oh,lord...:lol: again, you've resorted to the most pathetic argument imaginable - "Google hits = musical truth"!!
I accept your concession, the literalists have, indeed carried the day [BTW - a clue - Bernstein was a Reiner student:devil:]


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> BBWWAAAHHAAAAHHHAAAA!! Oh,lord...:lol: again, you've resorted to the most pathetic argument imaginable - "Google hits = musical truth"!!


And we're back to you lying again...note you didn't include the entire quote...

YOU'RE the one making the case that the objectivists "won." You rest on your case on conducting school - not something Furtwängler subscribed to - but you cannot answer why this style does not hold sway in the court of popular opinion.

BTW, anyone with a clue can hear that Bernstein's Beethoven is closer to Furtwängler than Toscanini...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BTW, American football >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soccer


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If deriding an opinion over music different from yours as indicative of a "cult" makes you feel superior in your opinion, more power to you.


No one said that. No one did that.

The cultish comparisons arise not from the opinion itself, but from the disparagement-whether implicit or overt⁠-of those who do not share it, as necessarily missing some sort of "universal truth", and also from showing a severe lack of humor or lack of self-reflection about oneself and one's chosen fandom.

For example, my jokingly insisting that Arsenal FC and not, say, Tottenham, is the greatest team in the Premier League is fine. I mean, it's objectively true*, but never mind.  Attacking or belittling in others in earnest just because they hold a different view, not fine.

It's really holding a sense of humor about one's fandom makes all the difference. (*For example, I am well aware that Arsenal has not won the Premier League trophy since 2004... It's all in good fun. When it's not, that's when we all have a big problem, one that ruins sports, or just about anything.)


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> BTW, American football >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soccer


If you think a nearly four-hour time span, spent with an average of maybe 10-15 minutes of actual ball in play, makes for compelling sport...


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And we're back to you lyin


Quit whining, will you??...Nobody need accept _google listings_, or _on-line hit counts_ as any sort of substantive musical argument whatever...



> YOU'RE the one making the case that the objectivists "won...."


I did, and They did, as of the present :tiphat:...the literalist school of Toscanini, Weingartner prevailed....the ultra-Romantic Wagner/FW style fell into disuse to a large degree....even so-called proponents practice it to a very reduced degree at present [Barenboim]...and let's face it - 
the newest wave - the HIP school of performance practice is "ultra-literalist" - even to the extent of "authentic" ensemble size, tempo, articulation, bow-stroke, original instruments, everything...it's about as far from WF is you can get!! the HIP guys make the literalists sound like ultra-Romanticists!!
I attend quite a number of live orchestra concerts, at least pre-covid-19, I haven't heard much Furtwangler style in a long, long time....a lot of good concerts, you know, guys sticking to the score, playing the music, expressively, powerfully....


----------



## Knorf

If you want a feebler, semi-Furtwänglerist in modern times, there's always Thielemann.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> If you want a feebler, semi-Furtwänglerist in modern times, there's always Thielemann.


Oh, yeah, that guy....I've heard a few things...I wondered wth he was doing....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I wondered wth he was doing....


Making music that people actually respond to....oh wait, I forgot...that is beneath you...Amazon, google searches...who cares what people actually LIKE


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Oh, yeah, that guy....I've heard a few things...I wondered wth he was doing....


His conducting interpretations resemble squeezing toothpaste out of a tube more than they do making music.

But some people rate him. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oddly enough, it's rare to see Thielemann's name mentioned around here, except negatively.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

To be fair, I don’t think I even own any Thielemann, but I saw his Bruckner 8 with the BPO and Tristan und Isolde at Bayreuth. Both were excellent. The Bayreuth crowd gave him a far bigger applause than any of the singers.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> To be fair, I don't think I even own any Thielemann, but I saw his Bruckner 8 with the BPO and Tristan und Isolde at Bayreuth. Both were excellent. The Bayreuth crowd gave him a far bigger applause than any of the singers.


Interesting. Well, I guess I won't write him off. I saw a video of him conducting _Der fliegende Holländer_ from Bayreuth and the production was weird, but the conducting was fine.

On the other hand, I also heard his Schumann symphonies and Beethoven 5 & 7 and they were much as I described them above. Toothpaste tube squeezing, especially the Schumann! Not to my taste at all, and lacking the keen sense of melodic and harmonic direction Furtwängler always has.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Making music that people actually respond to....oh wait, I forgot...that is beneath you...Amazon, google searches...who cares what people actually LIKE


People are free to like whatever they want....I still don't know what he was doing...


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> If you want a feebler, semi-Furtwänglerist in modern times, there's always Thielemann.


Tbf to Thielemann, I like his Bruckner and one set of his a schumann symphonies (there are two, Knorfy) . His Beethoven... Meh!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> To be fair, I don't think I even own any Thielemann, but I saw his Bruckner 8 with the BPO and Tristan und Isolde at Bayreuth. Both were excellent. The Bayreuth crowd gave him a far bigger applause than any of the singers.


From what we hear is going n in Bayreuth the conductor is the only person to applaud! :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Tbf to Thielemann, I like his Bruckner and one set of his a schumann symphonies (there are two, Knorfy) . His Beethoven... Meh!


The one I heard was on Deutsche Grammophon, late 1990s maybe? Philharmonia?

I think David Hurwitz is an idiot, but he had this to say about the second cycle, with Dresden:


David "No One Is An Expert But Me" Hurwitz said:


> Christian Thielemann hates rhythm. Schumann demands it. Thielemann despises sudden dynamic contrasts. Schumann thrives on them. Thieleman seems not to care about instrumental balances. Schumann's thick scoring requires smart podium management...




So, uh, Merl, which one is it you like? 

But, yeah, the Thielemann Beethoven I've heard is...really, really not to my taste.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

1996D said:


> That's quite depressing, hopefully it's not like that for other non-musicians. Why would you put time into something that you make no progress on?
> 
> I can remember being a small child in a concert and liking Mozart regardless of who was conducting, but the more sophisticated one gets the more the world of music opens up. Then you perform and create yourself and truly see the levels; as you do in any field.
> 
> Just persevere, no matter the talent level you should get results with perseverance.


This makes no sense.


----------



## Duncan

Interesting article written by Daniel Barenboim -

https://danielbarenboim.com/why-wilhelm-furtwangler-still-moves-us-today/

*"Why Wilhelm Furtwängler Still Moves Us Today"*

"Wilhelm Furtwängler was always a stranger in this world. He was someone who went his own way and stood apart from the others: he could not be pigeonholed in any one category, no matter how broad. Furtwängler is the ultimate embodiment of the musician who refuses to adapt to preexisting molds, the anti-ideologue par excellence-and I mean the present tense here quite seriously, for this is what makes Furtwängler still so vivid for us today. On the one hand, as musical director of the Berlin Philharmonic he belonged to the establishment, but at the same time, in musical terms he was considered an outsider from the very beginning. Contemporaries like Toscanini and Bruno Walter, for example, towed the line much more closely in aesthetic terms. It might seem bizarrely ironic to us today, but in fact the émigré conductors were much less torn figures than Furtwängler, who did not leave Nazi Germany.

The fissures in Furtwängler were internal ones. He was a subjectivist who philosophized. And this is exactly what he expresses in his work: the philosopher led the rehearsal, while the poet conducted in the evening. The one could not have existed without the other. Sharp tongues might claim that this indecision, this ambiguity was his fate. I don't believe that. Furtwängler was convinced that everything is connected: music as an organic whole. For Furtwängler, there were no phenomena independent of one another.

How, we might ask, was he then able to survive intellectually and politically through the Third Reich?

Of course, as I child I knew who Furtwängler was. I had heard him in Buenos Aires conducting the St. Matthew Passion, and naturally it was something very special when I was introduced to him in the summer of 1954. Just think: I loved to play piano; I would have played for anybody, even the hotel waiter. But this man had a great aura about him. Today, I can imagine that Furtwängler must have been very insecure as a person, very vulnerable. And also very German. Furtwängler needed his musical home. Perhaps that's why he never accepted the end of tonality.

It's constantly being said that Furtwängler was conservative. But that's not true, especially when it comes to the young Furtwängler, who conducted Stravinsky's Sacre and later Schönberg's Variations for Orchestra. Furtwängler had a deep-seated belief that music must evolve. Music is sound, and sound has to become, not just "be." As a result of this understanding, his music was always new, and never just a question of the repertoire. Furtwängler did not rehearse just in order to call up what he discovered in rehearsal for a concert in the evening. For Furtwängler, a Beethoven symphony was just as new, just as vital as a piece composed yesterday.

Despite all his distance from the world, all his wanting to be divorced from the present time, technological innovations of his day. He flew in drafty propeller planes to South America whenever a lucrative offering attracted him there, and already his work in the early 1920s we would consider "jet-setting" today. When he took over the direction of the Berlin Philharmonic in 1922, he was also active at Leipzig's Gewandhaus and in Vienna. Looking back at the programs of these years leads us to draw but one conclusion: the man must have spent most of his time living on night trains.

Furtwängler was unconventional. In the case of his successor, Herbert von Karajan, for example, the musicians always understood quite quickly what he wanted, and they carried it out. In the case of Furtwängler, everything was always different. He was unpredictable, and thus followed his own inner necessity. He took musical liberties and spontaneities not because of some kind of personal preference, but because the musical structures required it. Furtwängler never calculated the "how" in a score, but the "where." He would say to himself, here there has to be a stress, and here there can by no means be a stress. Without this scaffolding, without this analysis, he could never have been as free as he was. To this extent, Furtwängler was far more than the "master of the moment" that he is so often called. That is what most impresses me about him: his extraordinary freedom in his responsibility before the work. Wilhelm Furtwängler wasn't the Lord Byron of the twentieth century: he very much tried to integrate his subjectivity into the whole.

Wilhelm Furtwängler stood for an engagement with the music's content. I cannot explain a Beethoven symphony in words. If that were possible, the symphony would either be superfluous or for its part impossible. But this does not mean that music has no meaning. This search for the content in music is what's missing today: we look for the illustrious moment, or the cold architecture, or the historical truth. But we are cutting ourselves short.

As a composer, Furtwängler was primarily good at generating fantastic dramatic escalations. If his works had not been written in the first half of the twentieth century, but around 1870, the world would have been amazed by these masterworks. In terms of craftsmanship, his music is absolutely perfect: but aesthetically the seams are visible.

Since I was lucky enough to begin very early, I was still able to meet many famous musicians personally. Sometimes it seems like I was one of the last to visit a museum of "prehistoric art" before it was closed forever. One thing I noticed is this: these great figures all found their own issue over the years, the one idea to which they subordinated all else. The cellist Pablo Casals, for example, discovered that the little notes aren't listened to enough. So he concentrated on almost nothing else, becoming in the end something of a caricature of himself. Isaac Stern, the violinist, celebrated the articulation with the right bow arm, with the same effect. And Sergiu Celibidache made an ideology of Furtwängler's ideas about sound. If one were mean-spirited, one might say that he ultimately used the music to prove his own theories. But in the case of Furtwängler, there's nothing like that. For him, there was always the wonder of the riddle.

All of us felt Furtwängler's influence: Claudio Abbado, Zubin Mehta, and I. But Furtwängler's mythic stature only really began to take form at the end of the 1960s. The record companies were not especially fond of him. We young conductors now discovered recordings that we found to be better than the actual piece itself: Furtwängler's recording of Schumann's Fourth Symphony is a good example of this. Or his Tristan with Kirsten Flagstad and Ludwig Suthaus. You can't imitate that: but you can try to understand why it is the way it is, and then do it perhaps in an entirely different way. It doesn't have to sound like Furtwängler, but it must be like Furtwängler."


----------



## Duncan

:tiphat: to Becca of Perfidious Albion (not to be confused with "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm")

for the creation of this thread - 31 plus pages and counting...

Eagerly looking forward to 

"Explain fascination with Callas" in Opera and 

"Explain fascination with jazz" in Non-Classical - 

I think you're on the right track - burn down the forum and rebuild it from the ground up - :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Oldhoosierdude said:


> After I don't know how many pages now, I will offer my meager opinion. There isn't anything I have heard from Furtwangler or some of the other much talked about conductors, HVK, Solti, Toscanini, sometimes Bernstein, that I don't prefer other performances. A lesser known conductor and Orchestra does the piece more to my liking.
> 
> Maybe in my musical ignorance I can't hear what others hear.


I read this in a booklet of a Furtwangler CD:

"He was an intuitive musician, subjective in his approach and utterly uninterested in issues of historical context and authentic performance practice. He represented an opposite view to Toscanini, whose obsession was to determine the composer's intention and transmitting it as objectively as possible." -Bill Parker



Surely from this, you might be able to compare recordings and hear _some _kind of difference.

Customer review (maybe this will inspire you):

But what about Furtwangler? Well, once I heard his conducting of this masterpiece several years ago, I had to put aside even Karajan. Furtwangler's Metamorphosen is the fastest I've ever heard, perhaps it's the fastest ever recorded. It clocks in at at 23 minutes flat, while Karajan's fastest version is 26 and his others around 28. The typical time for Metamorphosen seems to be about 28 minutes. At a leisurely tempo it drags and even though I view it as one of Strauss' greatest works, it does have a tendency to sound like a repetitive loop or even a broken record unless the conductor can pace it with the utmost conviction. In all my years of listening I've never been as moved as I have by this music because of the utter tragedy of Furtwangler's conception of the piece. It is paced at break neck speeds at times with frenetic, near suicidal heartache and despair.

I was listening randomly to Herbert Blomstedt's version with the San Francisco on Decca one day, a well respected Strauss conductor. His Metamorphosen was beautiful, elegiac but it became increasingly insipid after 16-17 minutes. I just couldn't take the fact that it was so lukewarm, that the music sounded so tired, the emotions so muted. I had to reach for the Furtwangler which I hadn't heard in a while. Within the first minute, the entire atmosphere of the room and the emotional content of my soul was different. This is what this music should sound like. It is one of the great musical works of the post-war period. It's the death of romanticism and Germany and all values and ideals. A stunning achievement by an old, great composer and fully realized in Furtwangler's hands. Even though this is the fastest performance around, in the final death haunted moments Furtwangler changes the tempo to a funereal crawl that ends in total death. The greatest Metamorphosen ever!


----------



## Varick

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think Furtwängler can at most be accused of being naively used and manipulated by the Nazis, but he definitely did not in any way willingly help or support them. He honestly believed he was doing more to fight the Nazis by staying in Germany and standing up to them to the extent possible. What he got away with was inconceivable, including criticizing Hitler for his racial policies to his face. It was only because the Nazis needed Furtwängler so badly that he could get away with it. One of the things they did was use Karajan, a compliant Nazi, as a way to make Furtwängler jealous and try to curb his behavior. *This is part of the root of not only the animosity between the two men but their later admirers as well.*


I am not aware of this animosity between Herbie & Furti admirers. I actually thought most people were like me: If you like one, you'll probably like the other. I think there is so much to love and admire about both of these conductor's music acumen. Looking forward to reading the rest of this thread and learning more (While listening to Furt's Beethoven 6th & sipping my coffee).

V


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I used to hear about Callas vs Tebaldi debates. Musical rivals often inspire spirited debates between their adherents.

Again though, I don’t dislike Karajan or Toscanini. At least they’re not Reiner.


----------



## Varick

DavidA said:


> With respect I think this is a vast over-statement as musically we do a lot of things better than in the times of Furtwangler or indeed Toscanini. The standards of playing have risen beyond recognition since his day for example.. *We are playing early and baroque and much classical musician a far more appropriate way*. To keep harking back to a bygone age like this as if all was perfect is unrealistic and a denial of history. This is not to diminish in any way Furtwangler's achievement but this blind sort of worship which rubbishes present day musicians seems totally out of proportion.


I'm not sure what that even means. Could you please elaborate? I read it as an endorsement of HIP style, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. Thank you.

V


----------



## Varick

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Barenboim essentially emulates Furtwängler's interpretations. In fact, in the movie Taking Sides cited above, when Furtwängler is conducting in wartime Berlin it is actually Barenboim we are hearing conducting.





Enthusiast said:


> ^ Yes, they do say that Barenboim follows Furtwangler but I haven't really heard that in his work, which so often lacks the insights, inevitability and flow that Furtwangler achieved despite his flexible approach to tempo and so on. The best Barenboim performances seem not to be in the Furtwangler mode.


Absolutely Enthusiast! I cringe to even see both those names in the same sentence unless the context of that sentence is about opposites. I find much of Furty's conducting to be revelations. I find much of Barenboim's conducting to be lifeless, boring, flat, and shallow.

V


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My response in the Blind Comparison thread on Beethoven’s 7th. I did not realize it was live 2012 Barenboim:

“ C - Very powerful and exciting, THIS is Beethoven, beautiful phrasing, obvious understanding of the harmonic structure, wonderful tempo shifts, slow basic tempo that mostly works except for just a few sluggish moments. I'm guessing Klemperer here - similar to Furtwangler but less elastic - a great performance by an obviously elite Beethoven conductor.”


----------



## Varick

Heck148 said:


> Indeed, the romantic style may certainly return to prevalence....or perhaps a merging of the two styles in some new formation.


From your keyboard to God's ears!! Although I find Trevor Pinnock does a nice job at merging.

V


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I mentioned having taken conducting class back in college. I actually originally enrolled in music school wanting to be a conductor (inspired by...guess who?) but fell into singing as there were gigs readily available and conducting is hard to break into. I did have the opportunity once to conduct a choir and orchestra, part of a seminar for interested registrants. Haven't picked up a baton since, though I fill in to conduct my church choir on rare occasion.

How'd I do? (Be kind)


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> To be fair, I don't think I even own any Thielemann, but I saw his Bruckner 8 with the BPO and Tristan und Isolde at Bayreuth. Both were excellent. The Bayreuth crowd gave him a far bigger applause than any of the singers.


Not a particularly high bar...


----------



## wkasimer

Varick said:


> I am not aware of this animosity between Herbie & Furti admirers.
> 
> V


You must be new here. :devil:


----------



## Varick

1996D said:


> He's good and he had a great orchestra to work with, but his recordings are of poor quality. For piano this doesn't matter too much because of the natural clarity of the instrument, but for orchestra, sound quality is essential to grasp all the instruments, and the recording equipment was very poor in his day.
> 
> *Only the most stubborn of people listen to his recordings*, there is just so much better quality available. With exception of his conducting of piano concertos.


Only the most "stubborn?" What does that have to do with the price of lettuce? I'll go out on a limb and speak for all those who enjoy certain historical recordings that do not have modern sound quality to them: Stubbornness is NOT the reason we listen. In fact, if you made everyone who listens to historical recordings list 500 reasons why they listen to certain historical recordings, I'd bet big money that the word "stubborn" would rarely IF EVER show up on ANYONE's list.

We listen "through" the crappy sound quality for transformative performances. I may be wrong, but I am guessing you are on the younger side (30's or younger) and have not developed the ability to listen "through" hiss, crackling, excess recording noise, antiquated sound quality, etc., to LISTEN to the performance. I hope, for your sake, you do learn to do that someday, because you will be able to explore an amazing world of revelatory performances of some of the greatest music ever recorded.

This is not to say there aren't great modern, good quality, recordings of the same music. Of course there are, but many of us listen for "performance." If it is coupled by a great sound quality, then that's just gravy.

V


----------



## Varick

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think people can listen to music completely objectively, so there is always going to be some sort of context associated with it. In the case of Furtwangler, I think this is especially true.


Of course there will be some sort of context, but it may be completely emotional or personal context. It may have absolutely NOTHING to do with historical and/or political context. You can take some millennial who hardly knows anything about history (not hard to find), or even better yet, has never even heard of Furtwangler, have him or her listen to one of his recordings while not having any idea who is conducting and be moved to the very depth of their soul. You couldn't possibly lay that on any historical/political context. The first time I heard Furty (decades ago), I had no idea who he was, when he lived (although I assumed by the recording it was "a while ago") or anything else about the man. I was moved by his music.

Today, I find most musicians, actors, painters, sculpters, etc. to be political morons. It doesn't mean I don't listen to their music, watch their movies, or look at their art. I separate art from the artist. If I enjoy their art, then I will continue enjoying their art. I mean, outside of being a sadistic murderer, rapist, advocating the death of innocent people or groups of people, or something extreme like that, I will overlook their personal ideas and beliefs and enjoy their art.

I rarely have an issue with this. I have never understood those who do.

V


----------



## Knorf

Thanks for linking that Barenboim. It's very interesting and helps me understand the fascination slightly better.

But this quote, ugh. It's... just.... *****. The worst kind of Furtwänglerism, and deserves to be called out. There is not a single Furtwängler recording I'd accept if it meant giving up a single bar of Schumann 4 or _Tristan und Isolde_:

"We young conductors now discovered recordings that we found to be _better than the actual piece itself_: Furtwängler's recording of Schumann's Fourth Symphony is a good example of this. Or his Tristan with Kirsten Flagstad and Ludwig Suthaus." (Emphasis mine.)


smh


----------



## Varick

Woodduck said:


> It's probably unnecessary to point out that no one will ever know how Beethoven's music was played in 1820, or whether Beethoven would even have liked the way his contemporaries played it. I love Furtwangler's Beethoven, but don't always want to hear it done his way. Sometimes Nikolaus Harnoncourt and his Chamber Orchestra of Europe, or *Roy Goodman and his Hanover Band, hit the spot*.


and to think I used to like you... :lol:

V


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I mentioned having taken conducting class back in college. I actually originally enrolled in music school wanting to be a conductor (inspired by...guess who?) but fell into singing as there were gigs readily available and conducting is hard to break into. I did have the opportunity once to conduct a choir and orchestra, part of a seminar for interested registrants. Haven't picked up a baton since, though I fill in to conduct my church choir on rare occasion.
> 
> How'd I do? (Be kind)


Great job! You should do more!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Great job! You should do more!


Thanks! I've been waiting for my singing voice to deteriorate, and as I approach 50 that's becoming more of a reality


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've been waiting for my singing voice to deteriorate, and as I approach 50 that's becoming more a reality


I just hit 50. My bassoon chops are still the best I've ever had, but I know I can "look forward" to a long, inevitable decline. Luckily composition is very different!

I'm serious about liking your Haydn, by the way. If you haven't noticed, I calls it as I sees it. I hope you get to do more!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I mentioned having taken conducting class back in college. I actually originally enrolled in music school wanting to be a conductor (inspired by...guess who?) but fell into singing as there were gigs readily available and conducting is hard to break into. I did have the opportunity once to conduct a choir and orchestra, part of a seminar for interested registrants. Haven't picked up a baton since, though I fill in to conduct my church choir on rare occasion.
> 
> How'd I do? (Be kind)


I haven't watched this yet, but plan to. Nevertheless, congratulations for your courage in posting this on this sort of thread! Quite risky.


----------



## Varick

Woodduck said:


> How grossly tone deaf. The word "cult" is almost always a term of ridicule. It "comes in" (it doesn't walk in by itself, by the way) when someone wants to pose as a person of superior judgment and maturity and impute an imagined excess of enthusiasm to someone else. There may be some justification in applying it figuratively to some really outlandish or irrational behavior. It has no application to the subject at hand. There is no "Furtwangler cult."


I'm surprised at the level of recoil the word "cult" has here. Particularly with you Woodduck. You have been historically one of the more level heads here in TC (imo). I understand and agree with your literal interpretation of the word, but I don't believe the context of which it was said pages ago warrant such a vehement decry of it's use here. I "get" when people use the term "Gould cult." I am a HUGE fan of Gould's Bach and Baroque works (I can't stand his late classical and romantic works). If someone were to tell me that I am part of the Gould "cult," 1. I wouldn't take offense to it. Mainly because 2. I understand the context in which it is probably given. I also hardly ever take "offense" to anything.

I'm not defending nor advocating the word. It's just that I've never felt hostility from someone who's used it, particularly in an "artistic" context. When I hear someone call a movie that I happen to love (ex: The Big Lebowski) a "cult classic," it has never occurred to me that I should be insulted, feel ridiculed, or feel like the person is being "superior." Maybe it's just me.

V


----------



## Bulldog

For better of worse, "cult" is usually associated with nut-job leaders and followers. I consider it insulting as I also do the term "fanboy".


----------



## millionrainbows

In religious terms, "cult" refers to a religion in which the founder and leader is still living. So the Mormons were a cult for a while, until the leader died.
But there are other meanings. WIK: In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, *or by its common interest in a particular personality,* object or goal. This sense of the term is controversial and it has divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia and it has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study. 
It is usually considered pejorative...In the English-speaking world the word "cult" often carries derogatory connotations. It has always been controversial because *it is (in a pejorative sense) considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack *against groups with differing doctrines or practices.

Another reason the term is offensive to certain members: 
WIK: In the 1940s, the long-held opposition by some established *Christian* denominations to non-Christian religions and/or supposedly heretical, or counterfeit, Christian sects crystallized into a more organized *Christian countercult movement* in the United States.* For those belonging to the movement, all religious groups claiming to be Christian, but deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy, were considered cults.*


----------



## Varick

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How'd I do? (Be kind)


I don't know much about the actual "technique" of conducting, but I know what a conductor does having sat in and watched and listened to many many rehearsals. I know when a conductor brings out the essence, spirit, dynamics, color, etc in a piece and I can read scores OK. I enjoyed that video. I thought your left hand was great at emphasizing what you wanted out of that piece. Well done sir!

V


----------



## Varick

If one has a musical background (I have a degree in music, so I can read music), is it difficult to learn how to conduct? To be clear, I am not asking if it is difficult to be a "great" conductor, I am just asking if it is difficult to learn the basics enough to conduct say an easier piece of orchestral music such as an early Mozart or Haydn symphony?

V


----------



## DavidA

Varick said:


> I'm not sure what that even means. Could you please elaborate? I read it as an endorsement of HIP style, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. Thank you.
> 
> V


In a way that would probably be recognised more easily by the composers concerned. The word 'musician' should have read 'music' of course.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I mentioned having taken conducting class back in college. I actually originally enrolled in music school wanting to be a conductor (inspired by...guess who?) but fell into singing as there were gigs readily available and conducting is hard to break into. I did have the opportunity once to conduct a choir and orchestra, part of a seminar for interested registrants. Haven't picked up a baton since, though I fill in to conduct my church choir on rare occasion.
> 
> How'd I do? (Be kind)


That sounded fine to me. Well done you!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Varick said:


> If one has a musical background (I have a degree in music, so I can read music), is it difficult to learn how to conduct? To be clear, I am not asking if it is difficult to be a "great" conductor, I am just asking if it is difficult to learn the basics enough to conduct say an easier piece of orchestral music such as an early Mozart or Haydn symphony?
> 
> V


Conducting is very personal IMO. Just like speaking, the goal is to be able to convey what is going on in your head, except you use movement instead of speech.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Conducting is very personal IMO. Just like speaking, the goal is to be able to convey what is going on in your head, except you use movement instead of speech.


Excellent, almost telepathic! Of course most of it has been conveyed before by speech/practice but what exactly is going on that reminders are needed or that, oops, let's forget what was agreed upon, let's do it this way on the spur of the moment. I guess live performances require a change based on what it going on where excitement causes the conductor to use gestures to convey last minute decisions.


----------



## Bigbang

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I mentioned having taken conducting class back in college. I actually originally enrolled in music school wanting to be a conductor (inspired by...guess who?) but fell into singing as there were gigs readily available and conducting is hard to break into. I did have the opportunity once to conduct a choir and orchestra, part of a seminar for interested registrants. Haven't picked up a baton since, though I fill in to conduct my church choir on rare occasion.
> 
> How'd I do? (Be kind)


Bravo!!! More!!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Interesting article on artists during the Nazi era. I came across this while listening to Elly Ney, a very talented pianist, especially in Mozart, and then feeling disturbed as I looked at her biography. She seems to have been an unrepentant Nazi.

The following is an article written by British pianist Stephen Hough on the subject, entitled, "Adolph Hitler's favorite pianist", and published March 23rd, 2009:

"Most of us spend most of our moral lives in the middle - sitting on a fence broader then the gardens on either side. Our days are filled with small acts of cowardice and laziness alternating randomly with small acts of generosity and kindness. The big gestures, whether courageous or cruel, usually pass us by - more often through circumstance than through choice. But at certain times in history, circumstance demands of people difficult or demanding choices, forcing them to confront virtue and vice in real situations, when such choices involve life and death ... for themselves and for others. There were two female pianists in the last century, both Beethoven specialists and exact contemporaries, who did not sit on the broad fence like most of us, but who stood in the gardens on opposite sides with utter conviction and determination.

Elly Ney (1882-1968), it is said, was a "fanatical supporter" of Hitler. She voluntarily joined the Nazi party in 1937, participated in 'cultural education camps', became an honorary member of the League of German Girls, and wrote adoring letters to "mein Führer". According to the pianist Edward Kilenyi, who was a captain in the U.S. Army at the time, she would read extracts of Hitler's writings and solder's letters from the concert stage; and in Salzburg, where she taught during the war, she used to honor Beethoven's bust with a Nazi salute. After the war she was banned from performing in Bonn, and a request in 1952 for this ban to be lifted was refused. Her career, which had flourished in the earlier years of the century, never recovered, and just last year the mayor of Tutzing, the small Bavarian town where she died, finally removed her portrait from the Town Hall.

Dame Myra Hess (1890-1965) could easily have escaped safely to America at the outbreak of the Second World War, where she had a huge following, but she chose to abandon her international career and stay at home in central London during the worst of the bombing. After the outbreak of war all public places of entertainment were closed, but she convinced the government to allow her to start a daily series of concerts at the National Gallery which began on 10th October 1939 and continued until 1946. Although all the paintings and sculptures had been removed for safe-keeping, and occasional daytime air raids meant that the audience and musicians had to retreat to the basement, 824,000 people attended 1,698 concerts during London's darkest days. Dame Myra felt that music could give a geniune moral boost to people facing terror and hardship, and she prepared to risk her life and livelihood for that cause.

Most of us fall into the middle of these two extremes, and our various shades of moral grey can fluctuate daily, depending on all kinds of varying circumstances. Some artists who left Nazi Germany were courageous, some selfish; some who stayed there were courageous, some selfish. Some began well but descended to evil and collaboration; others began badly but later discovered heroism and humanity. I mean to prove nothing by placing these two formidable ladies next to each other in this way, except, perhaps, to pose the question: is there a moral dimension to music? Can a person who does evil things be a great artist?"


----------



## Knorf

Non sequitur: I got to know Stephen Hough a bit when I had the chance to perform the Dvořák Piano Concerto with him. First of all, I loved his performance, and I probably should disclose he endeared himself to me early on by praising my little bassoon solos in the concerto. Anyway, I found him very down-to-earth, supremely musical, thoughtful and insightful on a huge range of topics, and generally a pretty terrific guy.

Back to the topic, I'll just repeat what I wrote earlier: the exhaustively thorough de-Nazification tribunal cleared the the likes of Furtwängler, Böhm, Karajan, Strauss, etc. from wrong doing, and I can see no reason to second guess their decision.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

From Hough's article:

"Some artists who left Nazi Germany were courageous, some selfish; some who stayed there were courageous, some selfish."

I think based on the evidence, Furtwangler is firmly in the "courageous who stayed" category.


----------



## vincula

What really does fascinate me with Furtwängler is the sense of listening to something "organic". In his hands the music takes a kind of dark clarity, the weight of silence even on bad recordings seems almost like a physical presence in the room. Maybe that's why he hated studio work so much. You can really tell the difference on live recordings. There's something way beyond pitch, attack and decay. A certain way of shaping musical sentences and a constant awareness of the work "as a whole entity" even when playing only one chorus. 

I remember listening to his Beethoven no.3 for the first time. I couldn't dissect the music, spot any parts, think about anything at all. I was listening and "seeing" something evolving before my eyes. Guess it's difficult to explain. Somehow he wanted to connect what the universal and utterly human essence of music. Who knows how he got away with certain approaches. The truth's I keep coming back to many of his recordings -sometimes even more often that I'd like to admit, 'cause I do know there's so much more to discover out there, but...

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Enthusiast

^ That's well put, I think.


----------



## Knorf

^ I agree. When I find Furtwängler compelling to listen to, it's for reasons that resonate with what vincula wrote.


----------



## Barbebleu

Varick said:


> I'm surprised at the level of recoil the word "cult" has here. Particularly with you Woodduck. You have been historically one of the more level heads here in TC (imo). I understand and agree with your literal interpretation of the word, but I don't believe the context of which it was said pages ago warrant such a vehement decry of it's use here. I "get" when people use the term "Gould cult." I am a HUGE fan of Gould's Bach and Baroque works (I can't stand his late classical and romantic works). If someone were to tell me that I am part of the Gould "cult," 1. I wouldn't take offense to it. Mainly because 2. I understand the context in which it is probably given. I also hardly ever take "offense" to anything.
> 
> I'm not defending nor advocating the word. It's just that I've never felt hostility from someone who's used it, particularly in an "artistic" context. When I hear someone call a movie that I happen to love (ex: The Big Lebowski) a "cult classic," it has never occurred to me that I should be insulted, feel ridiculed, or feel like the person is being "superior." Maybe it's just me.
> 
> V


It kind of depends on who has written the word 'cult'. If it's the Guardian newspaper!! Well!! British readers will get the allusion. :devil:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The above post from Vincula demonstrates in a way how difficult it is to articulate just what it is that moves us about certain music and music performance, which is the subject of this thread. How do you describe in words something that is intrinsically ineffable? For me, just knowing what people respond to is enough explanation, even if I don't hear it the same way. There really is no need to "justify" it. In fact, that entire concept is wrong-headed in a discussion of art appreciation.

Which is why all the more I detest when people deride others' tastes as based on something illusory or the result of some sort of cult-like worship. If you react that way, all I can say is get over yourself.


----------



## DavidA

Just a point on the word: 'cult', It does appear that some people live in some kind of journalistic backwater and haven't heard of the use of the word 'cult' in regard to its use as a more general term as Varick kindly and graciously points out. Just looking at the distionary the word 'cult figure' may be applied to 'a writer, musician, artist, or other public figure who is greatly admired by a relatively small audience or is influential despite limited commercial success.' It has nothing to do with what some people have imagined as a sort of 'cult worship''. So if one talked of a 'Furtwangler cult' or a 'Gould cult' we are using a journalistic expression that includes people who are enthusiastic followers of their type of music making. Or a movie being a 'cult classic' is not one which you go to the cinema to worship but one which defines a certain style of movie making. Is that clear so no-one gets offended? Straight out of the dictionary?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Barbebleu said:


> It kind of depends on who has written the word 'cult'. If it's the Guardian newspaper!! Well!! British readers will get the allusion. :devil:


We all could be called the Classical Cult


----------



## millionrainbows

Explain fascination with Furtwangler: "faith." Faith is the evidence of things not seen.


----------



## Knorf

Some posters here go out of their way to be personally offended.

Being a fan-which, let's recall, is short for _"fanatic"_-of some composer, conductor, performing artist, etc., is something we _all_ do, and in general should celebrate. Arguing, even a little ribbing of each other's foibles: all par for the course.

On Talk Classical, about the only time I've seen anyone being derided for showing a bit of their fandom, would be fans of someone like Karajan, regarding whom certain posters make it sound like you're an idiot or hopelessly naive if you like those recordings. (E.g. "People who like distinctive performances with character and musicality avoid Karajan" is a paraphrase applicable to several comments in the infamous "What's Wrong With Karajan?" thread.)

I've seen little to no evidence that anyone who is a fan of Furtwängler has been derided on TC just for being a fan. Go back and read this thread: those being personally attacked are far more likely to be someone criticizing Furtwängler than someone discussing why they're a fan.

No. If anything the worst was that some were mildly chided for making it sound like Furtwängler's approach was the only valid approach, the ultimate in music-making for all time, and seem to have no sense of humor at all about any of that. And there's the rub. Lacking a sense of humor about the object of your fandom is when someone starts to seem cultish in a negative sense.

If you wish to accuse me of being a member of the Boulez cult?

Guilty.


----------



## Enthusiast

I guess a problem that might be implied by the word cult is when you (no, I will say "I") like someone's work so much that I become a little deaf to their faults and to good work by others. I've been there with a few performers but usually get things into perspective after a while.


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> I guess a problem that might be implied by the word cult is when you (no, I will say "I") like someone's work so much that I become a little deaf to their faults and to good work by others. I've been there with a few performers but usually get things into perspective after a while.


Agreed. I've been guilty of this with regard to Boulez, especially when I was in my 20s.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Regardless of whatever it truly means, the word “cult” will forever be associated with negative connotations meant to be inflammatory, and thus it is best to cull it from all discussion. Substitute with “fanatic,” “nut,” “enthusiast,” even “wacko” if you want to be derisive. But please not “cult."


----------



## Enthusiast

^ OK but I have a monopoly on the word enthusiast. I don't want to have to change my name to Wacko.


----------



## Manxfeeder

millionrainbows said:


> Explain fascination with Furtwangler: "faith." Faith is the evidence of things not seen.


:lol::lol::lol:I'm glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. (I don't agree with it, but it's still hilarious.)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Enthusiast said:


> ^ OK but I have a monopoly on the word enthusiast. I don't want to have to change my name to Wacko.


:lol: You know, sometimes I feel that I really am just a hopeless wacko when it comes to the things I'm most passionate about. I mean, the average person, or even someone who just casually enjoys classical music, would come here and be amazed that we can discuss the merits of 50 different Beethoven cycles and the strengths and weaknesses of different performers - it means that we have well-seasoned ears that can distinguish qualities in music deeper than just the notes, and we should all be grateful for that. For my first year or so of listening to classical, I would "lurk" here and be amazed that people could distinguish differences in performances when they all just sounded the same to me, let alone bear primitive historical sound. Now if you blindly played me any Beethoven symphony recording I could probably recognize whether it was Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan, Klemperer; or whether it was a German, Czech, Russian, or American orchestra pretty quickly. It's all part of the learning process as we surround ourselves with this profound art form. And to think just four years ago I was a complete and total ignoramus about any aspect of Western art music.


----------



## Neo Romanza

My fascination with Furtwängler is pretty easy to explain because I don’t have a fascination with him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Neo Romanza said:


> My fascination with Furtwängler is pretty easy to explain because I don't have a fascination with him.


Neither do I. I just appreciate his music-making to a higher degree than other conductors of my favorite repertoire.

"Fascination" implies that we are under some sort of spell beyond the simple act of liking the music we hear.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> If anything the worst was that some were mildly chided for making it sound like Furtwängler's approach was the only valid approach, the ultimate in music-making for all time, and seem to have no sense of humor at all about any of that. And there's the rub. Lacking a sense of humor about the object of your fandom is when someone starts to seem cultish in a negative sense.


Knorf: You think Furtwangler is the only conductor worth hearing.

Furt fan: No, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Knorf: See, you have no sense of humor! Cult member.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Knorf: You think Furtwangler is the only conductor worth hearing.
> 
> Furt fan: No, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Knorf: See, you have no sense of humor! Cult member.


Your fiction isn't bad, but you could tighten up the dialogue somewhat.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Just a point on the word: 'cult', It does appear that some people live in some kind of journalistic backwater and haven't heard of the use of the word 'cult' in regard to its use as a more general term as Varick kindly and graciously points out. Just looking at the distionary the word 'cult figure' may be applied to 'a writer, musician, artist, or other public figure who is *greatly admired by a relatively small audience or is influential despite limited commercial success*.' It has nothing to do with what some people have imagined as a sort of 'cult worship''. So if one talked of a 'Furtwangler cult' or a 'Gould cult' we are using a journalistic expression that includes people who are enthusiastic followers of their type of music making. Or a movie being a 'cult classic' is not one which you go to the cinema to worship but one which defines a certain style of movie making. Is that clear so no-one gets offended? Straight out of the dictionary?


That does not describe Furtwangler or Gould. Not in the least. Maybe Carlos Paita, for example. Relatively obscure but highly regarded by a small following (me included).


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That does not describe Furtwangler or Gould. Not in the least. Maybe Carlos Paita, for example. Relatively obscure but highly regarded by a small following (me included).


I think that is because you inhabit the world which is not inhabited by most of the population. Even the classical music population. But as I've said before if you read any modern journal you will find the word used. Unfortunately some here have taken offence because they have a literal minded approach to linguistics without referring to the context.


----------



## Enthusiast

But you cannot describe the following that Furtwangler (and Gould) enjoy among the classical music fraternity as limited. Your argument is merely that the whole classical music fraternity is a minority (and therefore we are all cultists?). Surely the word implies a certain blindness (or deafness) to defect, an inability to discriminate. It seems to me that most Furtwangler fans recognise that what we have inherited from him is mixed. Karajan's fans may be less discriminating (and therefore more cult-like)?!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I never knew there was such thing as a Karajan fan before I joined this forum. Most I have talked to either saw him as a default choice due to his exposure or they were anti-Karajan for the usual reasons. But I never came across anyone before who had to have a Karajan recording for every work above all other conductors.

What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it’s precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never knew there was such thing as a Karajan fan before I joined this forum. Most I have talked to either saw him as a default choice due to his exposure or they were anti-Karajan for the usual reasons. But I never came across anyone before who had to have a Karajan recording for every work above all other conductors.


Who, exactly, on TC fits this description? I never met such a person.



> What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


How's the view from the pedestal you just put yourself on?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Who, exactly, on TC fits this description? I never met such a person.
> 
> How's the view from the pedestal you just put yourself on?


Not talking about you. You have very diverse interests and tastes. Geez, light up.

There has been the insinuation on this thread that Furtwangler fans listen to him to the exclusion of all others. Just pointing out that this is nonsense. Does that place me on a pedestal?


----------



## larold

350 posts about Furtwangler, a guy that's been dead more than 60 years, should explain the fascination with him.


----------



## Knorf

larold said:


> 350 posts about Furtwangler, a guy that's been dead more than 60 years, should explain the fascination with him.


Not really. It demonstrates that the fascination exists, but does not explain it.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Not talking about you. You have very diverse interests and tastes. Geez, light up.


I knew you weren't speaking of me, and I never thought you were. My point is that you actually weren't describing _anyone_. Certainly no one on TC.



> There has been the insinuation on this thread that Furtwangler fans listen to him to the exclusion of all others.


There was not.



> Just pointing out that this is nonsense. Does that place me on a pedestal?


What's nonsense is the straw man you construct and knock over repeatedly.

What you said to put yourself on a pedestal was this:


> What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


I'm quite sure I've done as much listening as you, if not more, and I still regard Furtwängler as mainly a curiosity. Whether my taste is worth writing home about is another story, but I think no one could say it isn't diverse.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never knew there was such thing as a Karajan fan before I joined this forum. Most I have talked to either saw him as a default choice due to his exposure or they were anti-Karajan for the usual reasons. *But I never came across anyone before who had to have a Karajan recording for every work above all other conductors.*
> 
> What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


If this is how we define "fan", there are certainly very few fans of any conductor or artist. I also don't think we should make generalisations of such social groups as "Karajan fans" and "Furtwängler fans" which, mind you, can also overlap. TC is quite certainly not a cross-section of classical music listeners and there are way too few fans (compared to all classical music listeners) to make these generalisations.


----------



## Knorf

Very true annaw. I'm a self-described Boulez fan, and even as such I don't try to seek out every recording he ever made, not even the authorized ones...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I'm quite sure I've done as much listening as you, if not more, and I still regard Furtwängler as mainly a curiosity. Whether my taste is worth writing home about is another story, but I think no one could say it isn't diverse.


Your problem is you read insult into everything. That's why you accuse me so often of personal insult when none has been made, only the indirect insult you invent.

I stated that Furt fans on this board tend to be very open and appreciative of other artists. That does not mean that non-Furt fans are the opposite, but you read that in so as to invent offense and invent the idea that I am pedestalizing myself.

Also, you sure do a lot of policing of other people. Does that not indicate you view yourself as being above others? That's how it comes across to me when you make everything personal.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never knew there was such thing as a Karajan fan before I joined this forum. Most I have talked to either saw him as a default choice due to his exposure or they were anti-Karajan for the usual reasons. But I never came across anyone before who had to have a Karajan recording for every work above all other conductors.


Perhaps that's because such people don't actually exist.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your problem is you read insult into everything. That's why you accuse me so often of personal insult when none has been made, only the indirect insult you invent.


My dear speckled egg, anyone can go back and read this thread, and the "What's Wrong with Karajan?" thread, and see for themselves that no one has cried "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" more than you.



> Also, you sure do a lot of policing of other people.


So... just to be clear, you think that I think I'm the victim as well as the police?


----------



## JAS

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps that's because such people don't actually exist.


He did have a daughter.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps that's because such people don't actually exist.


There's nothing wrong with being a Karajan fan. He imbued a very distinct beautification upon everything he conducted, and that can be appealing. I'm just saying I hope people can come to fandom from a place of broad exposure.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There's nothing wrong with being a Karajan fan. He imbued a very distinct beautification upon everything he conducted, and that can be appealing. *I'm just saying I hope people can come to fandom from a place of broad exposure.*


This is a thing I was trying to address in my previous post. I still don't think that Furtwängler fans are any different from other such fans of other conductors. I think there are extremely knowledgeable people among both Furtwängler and Karajan fans. There are also some not so musically erudite fans of both conductors.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Neither do I. I just appreciate his music-making to a higher degree than other conductors of my favorite repertoire.
> 
> "Fascination" implies that we are under some sort of spell beyond the simple act of liking the music we hear.


One smiles to read your posts. You are fascinated by Furtwangler and his way of making music quite obviously. Also by his life as you go to great lengths to exonerate him from all wrong under the Nazis. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> One smiles to read your posts. You are fascinated by Furtwangler and his way of making music quite obviously. Also by his life as you go to great lengths to exonerate him from all wrong under the Nazis. Nothing wrong with that. Just admit it.


Brahms and Beethoven are my favorite composers. Does that mean I am "fascinated" by them? Likewise, just because Furtwangler is my favorite conductor, why should that mean I am "fascinated" by him? Again, it's a strange term for the reasons I stated.

I go to great lengths to exonerate him? I only state what is common knowledge. I think it is you who engages in mental gymnastics to ignore the evidence that Furtwangler was unique among musicians who stayed in his actions of opposition to the Nazis.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Brahms and Beethoven are my favorite composers. Does that mean I am "fascinated" by them? Likewise, just because Furtwangler is my favorite conductor, why should that mean I am "fascinated" by him? Again, it's a strange term for the reasons I stated.
> 
> I go to great lengths to exonerate him? I only state what is common knowledge. I think it is you who engages in mental gymnastics to ignore the evidence that Furtwangler was unique among musicians who stayed in his actions of opposition to the Nazis.


Interestingly, according to Cambridge dictionary, the meaning of "fascinating" is simply "extremely interesting" which doesn't require you to experience some spiritual otherworldliness while listening to Beethoven, Brahms or Furtwängler's recordings.

Fascination is definitely not a bad thing! I'm most certainly fascinated by my favourite composers and I enjoy finding out different aspects of their personalities, their music and life. I can be quite fanatical when it comes to my favourite composers, but that's what makes it so great and interesting!


----------



## JAS

This site has some interesting distinctions between Obsession versus Fascination:

https://wikidiff.com/obsession/fascination

Meaning, of course, is complicated as most words have connotation and denotation meanings. Even something like "mother," which would generally inspire thoughts of nurturing, can have a very different meaning if someone had a terrible mother.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There's nothing wrong with being a Karajan fan. He imbued a very distinct beautification upon everything he conducted, and that can be appealing. I'm just saying I hope people can come to fandom from a place of broad exposure.


What makes you think that they don't?


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


The implication here is that Furtwangler fans are more musically sophisticated than those who aren't. I find that rather nauseating.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> The implication here is that Furtwangler fans are more musically sophisticated than those who aren't. I find that rather nauseating.


My point was to counter the insinuation that there is a cult of Furt fans blind to the virtues of other conductors. Why does everyone insist on reading more into my comments than what I say?


----------



## JAS

wkasimer said:


> The implication here is that Furtwangler fans are more musically sophisticated than those who aren't. I find that rather nauseating.


People tend to find those who agree with them to be more intelligent and better informed, and those who disagree to be merely annoying. (Granting them the power of affecting your digestion may be especially unfortunate. )


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why does everyone insist on reading more into my comments than what I say?


Perhaps it has something to do with the way you choose to say them.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps it has something to do with the way you choose to say them.


Or it could be people looking for any avenue they can to feel superior to others, including by twisting their words.

There definitely is a Furtwängler backlash effect. People who see others go on and on about how great he is, but who don't hear it themselves, figure out ways to lash out personally. One of those ways seems to be to accuse them of snobbery. That's nothing new. Classical music fans are often accused of snobbery for appreciating music that most others don't.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My point was to counter the insinuation that there is a cult of Furt fans blind to the virtues of other conductors. Why does everyone insist on reading more into my comments than what I say?


Just read your comments! :lol:


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My point was to counter the insinuation that there is a cult of Furt fans blind to the virtues of other conductors. Why does everyone insist on reading more into my comments than what I say?


Soo.... let's see why we get such feeling as the one wkasimer put into words. You wrote this:

"What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard."

What you basically say, whether you intended so or not, is that Furtwängler fans are Furtwängler fans because they've done so much listening and have understood that no other conductor is as good as him. What in some cases could also be understood from this is that if you have crossed a certain threshold amount of listening, the inevitable consequence is that one hails Furtwängler over every other conductor. One can infer that if I don't like Furtwängler, you claim that I just haven't done enough listening. I haven't yet made my mind up whether this would be a straw man argument or not.

If even one of these statements wasn't conveyed in your comment, it wouldn't make very much sense. How does the fact that you have listened to many different conductors and that's why you like Furtwängler so much make sense if you don't claim that it has just made you understand that Furtwängler is better than any other conductor? For this to make sense, one has to infer that the amount of listening hasn't opened you to the virtues of other conductors but rather their downsides which Furtwängler seemingly doesn't have. Technically this means that you don't precisely claim that Furtwängler fans are aware of the virtues of other conductors but they are aware of the lack of them. If that's not so, how would listening to more recordings of other conductors enhance your appreciation towards Furtwängler?

If that's not what you meant, then just correct yourself but maybe you see why, based on mere logic, one could take your comment offensively or understand it as pedestalising. This doesn't mean that it was your intention!


----------



## Barbebleu

Annaw - are you sure English isn’t your first language?:tiphat: my apologies if it is, it’s just that I was sure I read that you were in Estonia but I could be confusing you with someone else. Of course being in Estonia doesn’t make you Estonian!:lol: 

You present a very cogent argument above.


----------



## annaw

Barbebleu said:


> Annaw - are you sure English isn't your first language?:tiphat: my apologies if it is, it's just that I was sure I read that you were in Estonia but I could be confusing you with someone else. Of course being in Estonia doesn't make you Estonian!:lol:
> 
> You present a very cogent argument above.


You're right - I'm indeed living in Estonia (half Estonian, half Finnish) but I'm quite sure English is not my first language :lol:. Huge thanks, great my argument makes any sense!


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> You're right - I'm indeed living in Estonia (half Estonian, half Finnish) but I'm quite sure English is not my first language :lol:. Huge thanks, great my argument makes any sense!


You guys always amaze me with your English. Far better than my Estonian and Finnish!


----------



## JAS

annaw said:


> . . . If that's not what you meant, then just correct yourself but maybe you see why, based on mere logic, one could take your comment offensively or understand it as pedestalising. This doesn't mean that it was your intention!


One complication with writing is always that there is often what one _means_ to say and then what one _actually_ says. Better writers tend to have less of a gap between these two conditions, although communication is also always dependent on a reader. If one is preparing a formal academic paper, one might take much pain to be precise and explain things at sufficient length that misinterpretation is harder, but in the clipped and hasty format of internet forums, things rarely work out that way.

Edit; I too am always impressed by people who are fluent in more than one language. My high school German never really did much for me other than to help me to understand and appreciate the basic differences between languages. (I am frequently grateful that English dropped the gender based use of verbs! I often wonder how languages that retained that feature of Latin will handle the modern era of fluid genders.) I was never able to make the leap of thinking in the other language. Trying to translate back and forth to English meant that it was hard for me to keep up with a conversation. (I wish my school had offered Spanish as that would at least have some utility these days in the US.)


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> One complication with writing is always that there is often what one _means_ to say and then what one _actually_ says. Better writers tend to have less of gap between these two conditions, although communication is also always dependent on a reader. If one is preparing a formal academic paper, one might take much pain to be precise and explain things at sufficient length that misinterpretation is harder, but in the clipped and hasty format of internet forums, things rarely work out that way.


Yes, I agree with you! Usually I probably wouldn't even draw attention to such things as this but I felt that there was just a very clear misunderstanding regarding that one comment which was thrown around. I think I understand the point Brahmsianhorn was trying to make but the whole simultaneous discussion about Karajan fans etc only enhanced the likelihood of misinterpretation of his original intention. I thought it would be good to sort that thing out and then continue.

Regarding the languages, I think it's a thing with smaller European countries. We have to learn different languages because we don't expect others to know languages which only a bit over one million people speak. English is easy to learn because it's so widely used that I can practice it fairly easily. Meanwhile I'm not able to have a very adequate discussion in Russian despite the fact that I've learnt it over 5 years.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There definitely is a Furtwängler backlash effect. People who see others go on and on about how great he is, but who don't hear it themselves, figure out ways to lash out personally.


Great. Now you're claiming victimhood.


----------



## Barbebleu

Furtwängler was a very capable kapellmeister, as were a barrow-load of other conductors. It’s only we listeners who elevate them to lofty heights reinforcing their somewhat already over-inflated egos!


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There's nothing wrong with being a Karajan fan. He imbued a very distinct beautification upon everything he conducted, and that can be appealing. I'm just saying I hope people can come to fandom from a place of broad exposure.


Nicely put. But Karajan was also capable of generating enormously powerful, and sometimes, terrifying sound pictures. His Sibelius is a big example.


----------



## Enthusiast

I'm not a Furtwangler fan and do not pursue his recordings but there are a good few that are (for me) extraordinarily rich musical experiences (usually in works I already know very well). I have also experienced many Furtwangler duds. But I do find it hard to accept that (all) others cannot hear how wonderful his best recordings are. So I read this thread with some amazement ... but then I always do when we discuss blind spots. There are of course many very great conductors - Karajan has been mentioned but I'm not sure many other comparisons have been made - who achieve astonishing results in very different ways. This is part of the glory of being into classical music.

Comparisons between our various favourite greats might be a slightly more objective and specific way to address the main question here. But hopefully this can be done without our trashing each others favourites.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> Perhaps it has something to do with the way you choose to say them.





annaw said:


> Soo.... let's see why we get such feeling as the one wkasimer put into words. You wrote this:
> 
> "What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste. In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard."
> 
> What you basically say, whether you intended so or not, is that Furtwängler fans are Furtwängler fans because they've done so much listening and have understood that no other conductor is as good as him. What in some cases could also be understood from this is that if you have crossed a certain threshold amount of listening, the inevitable consequence is that one hails Furtwängler over every other conductor. One can infer that if I don't like Furtwängler, you claim that I just haven't done enough listening. I haven't yet made my mind up whether this would be a straw man argument or not.
> 
> If even one of these statements wasn't conveyed in your comment, it wouldn't make very much sense. How does the fact that you have listened to many different conductors and that's why you like Furtwängler so much make sense if you don't claim that it has just made you understand that Furtwängler is better than any other conductor? For this to make sense, one has to infer that the amount of listening hasn't opened you to the virtues of other conductors but rather their downsides which Furtwängler seemingly doesn't have. Technically this means that you don't precisely claim that Furtwängler fans are aware of the virtues of other conductors but they are aware of the lack of them. If that's not so, how would listening to more recordings of other conductors enhance your appreciation towards Furtwängler?
> 
> If that's not what you meant, then just correct yourself but maybe you see why, based on mere logic, one could take your comment offensively or understand it as pedestalising. This doesn't mean that it was your intention!


The problem is one of context. The discussion was over whether Furtwangler fans represent a cult.



Enthusiast said:


> *I guess a problem that might be implied by the word cult is when you (no, I will say "I") like someone's work so much that I become a little deaf to their faults and to good work by others.* I've been there with a few performers but usually get things into perspective after a while.


I was responding to this precise post:



Enthusiast said:


> But you cannot describe the following that Furtwangler (and Gould) enjoy among the classical music fraternity as limited. Your argument is merely that the whole classical music fraternity is a minority (and therefore we are all cultists?). *Surely the word implies a certain blindness (or deafness) to defect, an inability to discriminate.* It seems to me that most Furtwangler fans recognise that what we have inherited from him is mixed. Karajan's fans may be less discriminating (and therefore more cult-like)?!


And my full response was:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never knew there was such thing as a Karajan fan before I joined this forum. Most I have talked to either saw him as a default choice due to his exposure or they were anti-Karajan for the usual reasons. But I never came across anyone before who had to have a Karajan recording for every work above all other conductors.
> 
> *What I have noticed is that Furtwängler fans, even the most reverential among us, tend to have diverse exposure and taste.* In fact, it's precisely because we have done so much listening that we hold Furtwängler in such comparative high regard.


Clearly my intent was to state that Furt fans are NOT cult-like insofar as the term means blinded to the attributes of others. That was all I meant! Why do you think I added "even the most reverential among us?" I was saying that even these people are not so cult-like to be blind to other musicians.

But there is nothing in my statement implying that Furt fans are exclusively diverse and sophisticated. I was simply defending Furt fans from the charge of cultish behavior. And to fault me for saying that we hold him in such high regard precisely due to comparison with others? Well I would hope that would be true of any fan! Otherwise it would simply be based on blind faith.

The idea that I was pedestalizing Furt fans is evidence of witch hunt mentality, trying to find offense in someone's words.

You people need to take a freaking chill pill.


----------



## Knorf

wkasimer said:


> Great. Now you're claiming victimhood.


It's inevitably his and first and sometimes only defensive action when facing criticism or disagreement.


----------



## JAS

People might not be so quick to claim victimhood if others did not make them do it. (If it isn't obvious, I was going for irony here.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> It's inevitably his and first and sometimes only defensive action when facing criticism or disagreement.


It's a fact that people are attacking me personally on this thread. Call it whatever you want. My only concern is to set the record straight on what I actually said in the correct context. But I shouldn't have to go to such lengths if certain people weren't so bloodthirsty to begin with.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Essentially the conversation is:

Anti-Furt fans: "You people are cultish. You act like he's the only conductor worth a damn."

Furt-fans: "Actually, no, we are pretty diverse in our tastes and show appreciation for other conductors as well."

Anti-Furt fans: "Look at the arrogance!"

Furt-fans: "???"


You cannot win against seek and destroy. Knorf, your point is that I really am this terrible person and my problem is I won't come clean and admit it. When I defend myself against those comments, you then state I am playing the victim.

I'll say it again because it is soooooo true: This is typical bullying mentality.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's a fact that people are attacking me personally on this thread.


Where? Point to a link, please.

But I know what this. You do not distinguish between someone attacking your position (which has happened) from attacking you personally (which has not.)



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Essentially the conversation is:
> 
> Anti-Furt fans: "You people are cultish. You act like he's the only conductor worth a damn."
> 
> Furt-fans: "Actually, no, we are pretty diverse in our tastes and show appreciation for other conductors as well."
> 
> Anti-Furt fans: "Look at the arrogance!"
> 
> Furt-fans: "???"


Fiction.



> Knorf, your point is that I really am this terrible person and my problem is I won't come clean and admit it.


Fiction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Where? Point to a link, please.
> 
> But I know what this. You do not distinguish between someone attacking your position (which has happened) from attacking you personally (which has not.)


Taking my words out of context and painting them as a form of nauseating arrogance is a personal attack.

I will say it one more time and then let's move on from this ridiculous argument. I did NOT say Furt fans are uniquely broad-minded. I was defending them from the accusation of being cultist to the extent being so indicates limited tastes.

If anyone has a problem with that, take it up with your priest. I'm done defending myself here.


----------



## Knorf

For the record, Brahmsianhorn, I do think you are a passionate guy (which is hardly a bad thing,) with some quirks (also not bad,) and a bit of a tendency to see personal attacks where none are intended (not great, but not truly bad in itself.) 

I do not in any way think you are a terrible person.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There are two ways to discuss music:

1) This is the music I like

2) What's wrong with you for not liking the same music I like?

Can we stick to the first way pleeeeeze?


----------



## Knorf

Your forgot the third way.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Essentially the conversation is:
> 
> Anti-Furt fans: "You people are cultish. You act like he's the only conductor worth a damn."
> 
> Furt-fans: "Actually, no, we are pretty diverse in our tastes and show appreciation for other conductors as well."
> 
> Anti-Furt fans: "Look at the arrogance!"
> 
> Furt-fans: "???"
> 
> You cannot win against seek and destroy. Knorf, your point is that I really am this terrible person and my problem is I won't come clean and admit it. When I defend myself against those comments, you then state I am playing the victim.
> 
> I'll say it again because it is soooooo true: This is typical bullying mentality.


A couple of things. Firstly I don't see any evidence of these so-called 'anti-Furt fans' just quite a few people who don't deem his performances as anything special (but obviously you do and that's fine). I'm certainly not an anti-anyone fan and (as previously stated) there are performances of Furty that I rate and like but many others I don't. I also don't see much 'bullying' on this thread just people who disagree with your opinion. There is no witch-hunt (or witches, for that matter) in this thread.

PS. I don't think anyone thinks you're a terrible person, BHS. Intense but not terrible.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> A couple of things. Firstly I don't see any evidence of these so-called 'anti-Furt fans' just quite a few people who don't deem his performances as anything special (but obviously you do and that's fine). I'm certainly not an anti-anyone fan and (as previously stated) there are performances of Furty that I rate and like but many others I don't. I also don't see much 'bullying' on this thread just people who disagree with your opinion. There is no witch-hunt (or witches, for that matter) in this thread.
> 
> PS. I don't think anyone thinks you're a terrible person, BHS. Intense but not terrible.


You listen to more recordings than anyone. So according the logic projected onto me by others, you must be the biggest Furt fan on the board. Because only a Furt fan could be so well-rounded, right?

I'm not saying anyone here hates Furt. But there is a tendency among some when people appreciate an artist they don't to find something wrong with those people who do, as a way to explain it. David Hurwitz is horrible about this. He refers to people as cultists if they see something in a recording he does not. I have seen a bit of that in this thread. The idea that people simply liking the recordings of a particular conductor being explained by such people not actually listening to the music but being swayed by some imaginary, supernatural force. It's insulting, and it's an issue with the person spewing forth the personal attacks.

Now, I have been faulted by Knorf for calling Karajan "corporate," and stating that he valued marketability over music risk-taking. Whether you agree with it or not, that is a criticism of KARAJAN. Knorf wants to interpret my words as an attack on people who like Karajan. If you consider every criticism on this forum of an artist to be a personal attack on those who disagree, there is no end to that.


----------



## Knorf

I certainly agree that Hurwitz is awful and useless for music recording criticism.

However, Brahmsianhorn, your falsely putting words into my mouth does not reflect well on you. I criticized your describing Karajan as "corporate" because it is misleading at best and gives a false impression of Karajan's career as a whole. I simply wished to contest that which I saw as inaccurate. (Besides which, all successful conductors _must_ be concerned marketing themselves. There are no exceptions. Singling Karajan out for this because he was among the most successful is an absurdity.)

But there were commentators in the "What's Wrong with Karajan?" thread who pretty clearly ridiculed people who like Karajan. You wrote this:


Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...It's not surprising that more intense classical fans such as you find here will opt for other recordings that take risks and say something about the music...
> 
> ...So why should it be a surprise that people on this forum who want to hear particular composers interpreted in a way that reveals their unique and individual musical ideas do not opt for Karajan?


It would serve you well to think about the implications towards other listeners inherent to these sorts of comments.

In any case, here was my devastating, "personal" attack in response:


Knorf said:


> Straw man! I, too, absolutely want to hear recordings that reveal the composer's "unique and individual musical ideas," and I do opt for Karajan. Because, at his best, he is supreme at that very ideal!
> 
> In great music, no one interpretation will ever have all of the answers.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I like Karajan's Debussy. It's very beautiful.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

His Beethoven is too softened however. Not violent enough.


----------



## Knorf

Here was the most egregious, insulting comment from that "What's Wrong with Karajan?" thread:


BachIsBest said:


> It seems that Karajan is a distinct less conductor who regurgitated out piece after piece of music for commercial profit while making no distinct artistic choices of his own.
> 
> On the other hand, he is a conductor with a terrible, instantly recognisable, beautiful, sound (but the sound is totally non-unique; it is, of course, purely distinctive only through how utterly generic it is) that he applies to every composer regardless of that composer's vision even modifying the intent of the composer or changing the score if he has to.
> 
> Of course, it really goes without saying, that there's nothing wrong with producing shallow recordings with no emotion (but are highly beautiful but still emotionless because perception of beauty and emotional response are totally distinct) because that's what those with inferior taste want and so it provides them with a natural outlet.
> 
> In any case, Karajan is an artless conductor for so many very coherent reasons.


That penultimate sentence is a very pointed insult towards anyone who likes Karajan recordings. That includes both you, Brahmsianhorn, and me.

I saw nothing comparable whatsoever in this thread towards Furtwängler fans. To be fair, I skipped a lot of it.


----------



## Gray Bean

As for HvK’s Beethoven: I like it. I prefer the last two cycles to the 63 and EMI sets, however. I’ve never warmed to the 63 cycle, despite its reputation. Of the four: 77

And, I adore Furtwangler, too. And Klemperer, Walter, Wand, Scherchen, Jochum, Bernstein...I could go on. I am currently listening to the new cycle by Trevino and the Malmo SO.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You listen to more recordings than anyone. So according the logic projected onto me by others, you must be the biggest Furt fan on the board. Because only a Furt fan could be so well-rounded, right?


I hope you understood that my post was in itself rather neutral. This logic was not projected onto anything but this was what one *could* make out of your comment and I explained the process how one *could* arrive to that conclusion based on logic. I never claimed that this was what you actually meant.


----------



## Merl

Gray Bean said:


> As for HvK's Beethoven: I like it. I prefer the last two cycles to the 63 and EMI sets, however. I've never warmed to the 63 cycle, despite its reputation. Of the four: 77
> .


There's 6 cycles now, GB! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His Beethoven is too softened however. Not violent enough.


I wonder what sort of ears you listen with. I have recordings of Beethoven's third symphony I have recordings of Beethoven's third symphonyby Furtwangler and Karajan and I played them one after the other. I can assure you that Karajan was the more 'violent'


----------



## Knorf

Softened Beethoven, as if it were butter, from Karajan was not a thing.


----------



## Merl

Softened Beethoven? Here he is!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Knorf said:


> Softened Beethoven, as if it were butter, from Karajan was not a thing.


It's rich and buttery, but not in a "softened" way IMO. At his best, Karajan had a gift for maintaining a steady, singing legato line so that the whole thing sounded like one big opulent phrase. That '77 cycle is my go-to for "big band," big sound, luxurious orchestral high-calorie Beethoven.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I wonder what sort of ears you listen with. I have recordings of Beethoven's third symphony I have recordings of Beethoven's third symphonyby Furtwangler and Karajan and I played them one after the other. I can assure you that Karajan was the more 'violent'


Listen here at 5:30 to the passage lasting for the next 1:15 (You have to click "Watch this video on YouTube"). It sounds like angst and drama to the point of wanting to rip your clothes off, which is what it's supposed to sound like:






Now listen to the same passage at 4:45 with Karajan. It sounds wimpy and generalized by comparison. And that's with the advantage of digital sound. It's still a good recording, one of my favorites, but not up to par with the Furtwangler.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You people need to take a freaking chill pill.


And perhaps some people, yourself included, need a thicker skin.

It would also help, I think, if you stuck to writing why you admire Furtwangler's music making (which you have) and why you don't particularly like much of Karajan's (which, again, you have), but avoided making gross generalizations either about the work of these conductors, or about those people who admire them, or don't.

Just a suggestion. Have a nice day.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Listen here at 5:30 to the passage lasting for the next 1:15 (You have to click "Watch this video on YouTube"). It sounds like angst and drama to the point of wanting to rip your clothes off, which is what it's supposed to sound like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now listen to the same passage at 4:45 with Karajan. It sounds wimpy and generalized by comparison. And that's with the advantage of digital sound. It's still a good recording, one of my favorites, but not up to par with the Furtwangler.











Edit: got it working. 
.................


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> And perhaps some people, yourself included, need a thicker skin.
> 
> It would also help, I think, if you stuck to writing why you admire Furtwangler's music making (which you have) and why you don't particularly like much of Karajan's (which, again, you have), but avoided making gross generalizations either about the work of these conductors, or about those people who admire them, or don't.
> 
> Just a suggestion. Have a nice day.


Actually I like quite a bit of Karajan. One of my favorites is his 1950 EMI Zauberflote, which I prefer to the Furtwangler with I believe an identical cast.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Listen here at 5:30 to the passage lasting for the next 1:15 (You have to click "Watch this video on YouTube"). It sounds like angst and drama to the point of wanting to rip your clothes off, which is what it's supposed to sound like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now listen to the same passage at 4:45 with Karajan. It sounds wimpy and generalized by comparison. And that's with the advantage of digital sound. It's still a good recording, one of my favorites, but not up to par with the Furtwangler.


The Fiurtwangler video was disabled by the user. Obviously a case of too many people listening and ripping their clothes off! Mass arrests for public indecency I shouldn't wonder! Interesting, I have heard many theories about the Eroica symphony but not one that it's supposed to promote a strip tease. What is the scholastic reference for that, pray? :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Listen here at 5:30 to the passage lasting for the next 1:15 (You have to click "Watch this video on YouTube"). It sounds like angst and drama to the point of wanting to rip your clothes off, which is what it's supposed to sound like...
> 
> Now listen to the same passage at 4:45 with Karajan. It sounds wimpy and generalized by comparison. And that's with the advantage of digital sound. It's still a good recording, one of my favorites, but not up to par with the Furtwangler...


I listened to these examples. I do not agree with your description or preference. And even though I have a clear preference between the two, myself, I cannot see how one sets a "par" for the other. They're different approaches. I prefer the Karajan, but it does not set a "par" for Furtwängler. Really I'm not even sure how that works in music: par is for golf, not art.

Furtwängler slows down a lot more. Big deal. In the words of the greatest conductor and conducting teaching I ever knew, slow is not more expressive. Slow is not more beautiful. Slow is not more profound. Going slow is going slow.

So, Furtwängler goes slow and is heavier on the accents, but this loses rhythmic momentum completely, and it is not adequately regained. This performance is a wreck, basically. It sounds like someone is about to die of a heart attack, which is neat if you think that's what this passage is about. I do not. Note that Beethoven did not mark a ritardando here, and there's more of the development section yet to come, not mention the entire recapitulation and extensive coda. Furtwängler seems to be signaling, that's it. We're done, here. He's dead. Move along.

I certainly do _not_ wish to "rip off my clothes," which strikes me as more than a bit bizarre.

And Karajan's is not "wimpy" by comparison. It's just different. He maintains the dramatic, rhythmic momentum staying within time, which is different but _valid_. In keeping the rhythm moving, for me it is ultimately more convincing on the level of dramatic and musical tension.

Between the two, Furtwängler to me is excessively indulgent, and turns the music into a grotesque caricature, almost comically. If this was the movie _Jaws_, to me, Furtwängler's would be the one that adds a big sign with an arrow above the water signalling "Watch out! Shark attack is happening!" It actually made me want to giggle, and I don't feel any need to hear it again.

Karajan's is more truly musical for me, and certainly offers more subtlety and musical maturity. Between the two, this is the recording that intrigues and is the one that I will return to.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Furtwängler slows down a lot more. Big deal. In the words of the greatest conductor and conducting teaching I ever knew, *slow is not more expressive. Slow is not more beautiful. Slow is not more profound.* Going slow is going slow.


This is always such a specious argument. Did anyone say this? Toscanini '39 is my favorite Eroica after Furtwangler, and it is anything but slow. Again, simplifying people's tastes to the superficial. It would be like me saying you prefer Karajan's tempo due to having a short attention span.

Off now to listen to Celibidache, because slow is always more profound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The Fiurtwangler video was disabled by the user. Obviously a case of too many people listening and ripping their clothes off! Mass arrests for public indecency I shouldn't wonder! Interesting, I have heard many theories about the Eroica symphony but not one that it's supposed to promote a strip tease. What is the scholastic reference for that, pray? :lol:


I explained this. After you click play you have to click "Watch this video on YouTube."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think what can be gleaned from this is that some people prefer more straightforward, unforced interpretations that “let the notes do the talking” (“classical/rational”) and some people prefer more highly personal, individualized (“romantic/impulsive”) approaches. I can enjoy both, but would always take the latter to my desert island. What some call “egotistical” and “indulgent” I call artistic imagination.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is always such a specious argument.



Puzzled, here. Do you know what "specious" means? It means an argument that sounds good, but is actually wrong. So, if I had used that statement _as an argument_, it is not wrong, because going slower does in fact _not_ make music inherently more expressive, more beautiful, more dramatic, more profound or more anything other than slow. Therefore it would not be specious.

But I didn't use it as argument. I used it as an observation. You're the one who held up Furtwängler in this context as setting "par." You said it made you want to tear your clothes off. (By the way, I don't need that imagine.)

So I first have to observe what is objectively true about the passage in comparison to Karajan, since that's literally what you asked us to do. Furtwängler slows down more, is the most obvious and quantifiable difference.

That fact alone does not make it better than Karajan, or make Karajan "wimpy" or inferior in itself. Your argument is that is it superior. The objective elements that are observable (slower, heavier) do not lead me to this conclusion, which is one of taste, not fact.

What Furtwängler does do in my opinion is make a caricature out of a passage that is high in dissonance but that bears no indication from Beethoven to slow down.

So, the argument, such as it is, boils to down to:

1) I don't agree with you.
2) ???
3) Profit!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think what can be gleaned from this is that some people prefer more straightforward, unforced interpretations that "let the notes do the talking" ("classical/rational") and some people prefer more highly personal, individualized ("romantic/impulsive") approaches. I can enjoy both, but would always take the latter to my desert island. What some call "egotistical" and "indulgent" I call artistic imagination.


My one disagreement here is that the notes can ever just do the talking. Can you play Beethoven through a computer program by just setting the instruments, dynamics, and tempos? I don't think you can. Whichever approach the conductor chooses, it represents a choice. So the notes are never just doing the talking. It comes down to whether or not you think the conductor did a good job in his choices.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Puzzled, here. Do you know what "specious" means? It means an argument that sounds good, but is actually wrong. So, if I had used that statement _as an argument_, it is not wrong, because going slower does in fact _not_ make music inherently more expressive, more beautiful, more dramatic, more profound or more anything other than slow. Therefore it would not be specious.
> 
> But I didn't use it as argument. I used it as an observation. You're the one who held up Furtwängler in this context as setting "par." You said it made you want to tear your clothes off. (By the way, I don't need that imagine.)
> 
> So I first have to observe what is objectively true about the passage in comparison to Karajan, since that's literally what you asked us to do. Furtwängler slows down more.
> 
> That fact alone does not make it better than Karajan, or make Karajan "wimpy" or inferior in itself. Your argument is that is it superior. The objective elements that are observable (slower, heavier) do not lead me to this conclusion, which is one of taste, not fact.
> 
> What Furtwängler does do in my opinion is make a caricature out of a passage that is high in dissonance but that bears no indication from Beethoven to slow down.
> 
> So, the argument, such as it is, boils to down to:
> 
> 1) I don't agree with you.
> 2) ???
> 3) Profit!


Knorf, the point is that it is NOT the slowness that makes it profound!!!! That was my point in calling it specious. It is a hollow argument because no one is saying that in the first place. Now in order to do what Furtwangler does, he had to slow down. But the slowing by itself does not make it profound. In another section it might be more profound to speed up.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Becca said:


> * In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...
> View attachment 136028


Anyone remember this?


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My one disagreement here is that the notes can ever just do the talking. Can you play Beethoven through a computer program by just setting the instruments, dynamics, and tempos? I don't think you can. Whichever approach the conductor chooses, it represents a choice. So the notes are never just doing the talking. It comes down to whether or not you think the conductor did a good job in his choices.


Agreed on these points.

In the excerpts you asked us to compare, apparently hoping that we would jump to your side that Furtwängler is a superior conductor to Karajan, I myself _do not_ prefer Furtwängler's choices. I think they go too far and become a caricature

Capisce?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Between the two, Furtwängler to me is excessively indulgent, and turns the music into a grotesque caricature, almost comically. If this was the movie _Jaws_, to me, Furtwängler's would be the one that adds a big sign with an arrow above the water signalling "Watch out! Shark attack is happening!" It actually made me want to giggle, and I don't feel any need to hear it again.
> 
> Karajan's is more truly musical for me, and certainly offers more subtlety and musical maturity. Between the two, this is the recording that intrigues and is the one that I will return to.


Furtwangler's is the one that for me does what that section calls for. With Karajan I feel cheated, like I didn't get the full effect of the music. That in a nutshell is what I get from Furtwangler in this repertoire.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Agreed on these points.
> 
> In the excerpts you asked us to compare, apparently *hoping* that we would jump to your side that Furtwängler is a superior conductor to Karajan, I myself _do not_ prefer Furtwängler's choices. I think they go too far and become a caricature
> 
> Capisce?


I don't give a damn what side you choose. That has never ever been a goal of mine. I have said repeatedly that we all hear it differently. DavidA made his point on the Eroica comparison. I made the opposite point. Free country. Or is it?


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Knorf, the point is that it is NOT the slowness that makes it profound!!!!


Oh, yeah? Then what does? Something magical and ineffable that cannot be determined by objective observation? That you alone have the secret to? You offered little beyond that it makes you want to tear your clothes off. Again, not what I'm looking for.



> That was my point in calling it specious. It is a hollow argument because no one is saying that in the first place.


Go back and re-read what I wrote. I never said anyone said _that_. I was making an _observation_. I led my observation with context that explains why I am making it. It was not offered as a rebuttal to any specific argument. Therefore, it can be neither specious nor "hollow."

Here's the argument, such as it is.

Brahmsianhorn: these two excerpts demonstrate Karajan is inferior (by not making some sort of "par") to Furtwängler. Also, I wish to disrobe because Furtwängler.

Knorf: It does not those things for me. Here's what I think.

Brahmsianhorn: Specious argument!

Knorf: Uh, no. I simply disagree with you on a matter of _taste_. Also, please keep your clothes on, thank you.



> Now in order to do what Furtwangler does, he had to slow down. But the slowing by itself does not make it profound. In another section it might be more profound to speed up.


If you're just going to resort to tautologies, I really don't see the point in continuing to engage you. And I have to admit, I've been asking myself this question for quite a while.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Knorf, the point is that it is NOT the slowness that makes it profound!!!! That was my point in calling it specious. It is a hollow argument because no one is saying that in the first place. Now in order to do what Furtwangler does, he had to slow down. But the slowing by itself does not make it profound. In another section it might be more profound to speed up.


Sorry but I find your argument quite specious too. You are just digging a hole for yourself.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't give a damn what side you choose. That has never ever been a goal of mine. I have said repeatedly that we all hear it differently. DavidA made his point on the Eroica comparison. I made the opposite point. Free country. Or is it?


The point is that what you hear doesn't appear to be what everyone else hears. No-one else has ripped their clothes off!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My one disagreement here is that the notes can ever just do the talking. Can you play Beethoven through a computer program by just setting the instruments, dynamics, and tempos? I don't think you can. Whichever approach the conductor chooses, it represents a choice. So the notes are never just doing the talking. It comes down to whether or not you think the conductor did a good job in his choices.


I do agree with that. But people who prefer that kind of performance often tend to think that "the composer's intentions" can be fully realized by playing the score clinically and without inflection. If that's what I wanted I'd just listen to a MIDI program play the score. I want humanity and character!


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I do agree with that. But people who prefer that kind of performance often tend to think that "the composer's intentions" can be fully realized by playing the score clinically and without inflection. If that's what I wanted I'd just listen to a MIDI program play the score. I want humanity and character!


Agreed. We all do, just to different qualities and degrees.


----------



## annaw

........................................................


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Knorf: It does not those things for me. Here's what I think.
> 
> Brahmsianhorn: Specious argument!


But that's not what you said. You stated that slowness does not equal profundity. You misrepresented the argument from the other side. If slowness by itself equaled profundity Celibidache would be the greatest conductor who ever lived.

Yes, there is an ineffable quality to what Furt does. It's music! By its nature it is ineffable. Furt does not merely slow down. He imbues the music with angst and tragedy. It's the point of art. The opposite would be to just simply play the notes without internalizing the emotions.


----------



## Merl

Is it just me or is anyone else getting disturbing mental images of Furty waving his arms around whilst the BPO play naked? I think I need that chill pill, now. Playing those timpani could prove hazardous for the more well-endowed timpani St.


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> The point is that what you hear doesn't appear to be what everyone else hears. No-one else has ripped their clothes off!


Hey! I thought I turned my webcam off!


----------



## Itullian

i just like his music making.
Seems like the Toscanini philosophy has won the day tese days.
But I'm a Furtwanglerian for life. 
Furty forever!!!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The point is that what you hear doesn't appear to be what everyone else hears. No-one else has ripped their clothes off!


You couldn't even figure out how to open the video


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But that's not what you said. You stated that slowness does not equal profundity. You misrepresented the argument from the other side. If slowness by itself equaled profundity Celibidache would be the greatest conductor who ever lived.
> 
> Yes, there is an ineffable quality to what Furt does. It's music! By its nature it is ineffable. Furt does not merely slow down. He imbues the music with angst and tragedy. It's the point of art. *The opposite would be to just simply play the notes without internalizing the emotions.*


Has anyone ever played Beethoven like that? As you say, conducting is art! It's almost impossible for an artist to not put a part of himself into the work. He must be at least unconsciously interpreting it - only a MIDI program could play it without interpretation. To my knowledge there's no such human being who calls himself a conductor and plays Beethoven like a MIDI program.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Itullian said:


> i just like his music making.
> Seems like the Toscanini philosophy has won the day tese days.
> But I'm a Furtwanglerian for life.
> Furty forever!!!!


What's strange is how some think I am "hoping" to persuade others to change their minds. I am merely speaking my mind AND clarifying my position when others distort it.

I would rather die happily knowing I picked the right side and persuaded nobody than that I picked the wrong side and persuaded everyone to join me. I guess that's why I left the legal profession.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> Has anyone ever played Beethoven like that? As you say, conducting is art! It's almost impossible for an artist to not put a part of himself into the work. He must be at least unconsciously interpreting it - only a MIDI program could play it without interpretation. To my knowledge there's no such human being who calls himself a conductor and plays Beethoven like a MIDI program.


Exactly, so we are in agreement. This is why it was such a fallacy for Toscanini to claim he was playing the music as written. He was as willful and individual as anyone. He played music according to HIS aesthetic. Similarly the HIP are not about authenticity. They are about playing music according to their aesthetic. Ever met a HIPster who insists on playing Romantic repertoire exactly as you would hear it in the 1880s, with rubato and portamento? I haven't.


----------



## Itullian

annaw said:


> Has anyone ever played Beethoven like that? As you say, conducting is art! It's almost impossible for an artist to not put a part of himself into the work. He must be at least unconsciously interpreting it - only a MIDI program could play it without interpretation. To my knowledge there's no such human being who calls himself a conductor and plays Beethoven like a MIDI program.


Toscanini............


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You couldn't even figure out how to open the video


No but I've got the CD


----------



## DavidA

On the subject of taking one's clothes off, dig this! Get the sick bowl handy!

https://slippedisc.com/2020/06/its-the-naked-pianist-look-away-now/


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> No but I've got the CD


The studio EMI CD? That's his worst performance.


----------



## ribonucleic

For me, as a Jew, part of the grim fascination of a wartime Furtwangler recording is the knowledge that, at the very moment he was coaxing such magnificent sounds out of his orchestra, victims were being murdered in the gas chambers.

Maybe one has nothing to do with the other. From what I’ve read, Furtwangler wasn’t a Nazi. (At least he was much less of a Nazi than Karajan.) But that was the historical reality.

In a time where the cruelties of privilege are being laid bare all around us, it’s very hard to ignore.


----------



## BachIsBest

Knorf said:


> Here was the most egregious, insulting comment from that "What's Wrong with Karajan?" thread:
> 
> That penultimate sentence is a very pointed insult towards anyone who likes Karajan recordings. That includes both you, Brahmsianhorn, and me.
> 
> I saw nothing comparable whatsoever in this thread towards Furtwängler fans. To be fair, I skipped a lot of it.


Just to be clear, I quite like Karajan and defended him on that thread. The post referenced was my attempt to satirise those who attacked Karajan (I must say, I'm particularly proud of the penultimate sentence in that regard, it makes me laugh). I fell victim to the vicious thing known as Poe's Law but did clarify a few posts later that my attempt was at comedy: not derision; as, of course, as an admirer of Karajan, I would be deriding myself.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The studio EMI CD? That's his worst performance.


Of course! :lol:

It does put me in mind of where our brain is when we listen to music. I remember a someone reviewing Karajan's 63 set which had been reissued and saying, 'How on earth anyone could describe these fiery performances as 'bland' is beyond me!' Your comment on Jarajan's Eroica is similarly beyond many here.


----------



## Enthusiast

Karajan vs. Furtwangler is an interesting comparison. I am not sure we have had any other conductor who can join those two in the competition. Both achieved amazing accounts of great music and yet both are very different. Even having a preference might be too narrow? For a given work and our recorded legacy of it there may indeed be many others we would consider but over the the entire Austro-German repertoire (we don't go outside of that with Furtwangler) they seem to stand above all others.


----------



## wkasimer

Enthusiast said:


> Karajan vs. Furtwangler is an interesting comparison. I am not sure we have had any other conductor who can join those two in the competition.


You're going to have to explain that last sentence.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> .... but over the the entire Austro-German repertoire (we don't go outside of that with Furtwangler) they seem to stand above all others.


.......BS.......


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I would not say Karajan is vying with Furtwangler in Austro-German repertoire. I would put Furtwangler at the top, followed by Klemperer, and then a group including Karajan, Walter, Jochum, Bohm, and Bernstein. The latter group had their good and bad days, but Furtwangler and Klemperer were compelling every time in their home repertoire. They had the sense of line and structural architecture that is critical in this repertoire.

I like Karajan better in non-German repertoire where he beautifully painted the music as if it was set in heaven: Debussy, Ravel, Grieg, Sibelius. He was very good at tone poems. No one did Strauss or Liszt better.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> .......BS.......


The problem with Toscanini/Reiner is that spitfire orchestral execution only gets you so far. There is more to this repertoire than that. They're great in Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. But Beethoven requires more.

You know very well than Toscanini flaunted this idea, saying the Eroica is Allegro con brio, nothing more. He was wrong about that. But he sure was exciting. I will still listen to his Beethoven on occasion as an alternative to the guys who really understood how the music should go.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I would not say Karajan is vying with Furtwangler in Austro-German repertoire. I would put Furtwangler at the top, followed by Klemperer, and then a group including Karajan, Walter, Jochum, Bohm, and Bernstein. The latter group had their good and bad days, but *Furtwangler and Klemperer were compelling every time in their home repertoire*. They had the sense of line and structural architecture that is critical in this repertoire.
> 
> I like Karajan better in non-German repertoire where he beautifully painted the music as if it was set in heaven: Debussy, Ravel, Grieg, Sibelius. He was very good at tone poems. No one did Strauss or Liszt better.


I remember a time when Klemp was reckoned to be THE way to conduct Beethoven but these days most people probably realise that the recordings he made when an old man lack vigour and are simply too slow in places.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem with Toscanini/Reiner is that spitfire orchestral execution only gets you so far. There is more to this repertoire than that. They're great in Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. But Beethoven requires more.
> 
> You know very well than Toscanini flaunted this idea, saying the Eroica is Allegro con brio, nothing more. He was wrong about that. But he sure was exciting. I will still listen to his Beethoven on occasion as an alternative to the guys who really understood how the music should go.


He didn't say it is 'allegro con brio nothing more'. If you are going to quote the man quote him correctly! This is typical of the way you put a spin on things that annoys people.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> He didn't say it is 'allegro con brio nothing more'. If you are going to quote the man quote him correctly! This is typical of the way you put a spin on things that annoys people.


That is essentially what he said. It was technician philosophy perfectly stated by the king himself.

"To some it's Napoleon, to some it's philosophical struggle, to me it's allegro con brio."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Between the two, Furtwängler to me is excessively indulgent, and turns the music into a grotesque caricature, almost comically. If this was the movie _Jaws_, to me, Furtwängler's would be the one that adds a big sign with an arrow above the water signalling "Watch out! Shark attack is happening!" It actually made me want to giggle, and I don't feel any need to hear it again.


Depending on my mood, that can be a fair criticism. I would add however that like Klemperer, Furtwangler got heavier in his last years. His best Beethoven was recorded during the war, more alert and concentrated. So in his 1944 Eroica that passage for example at 5:00 is less obviously disruptive and more in keeping with the flow of the music.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is essentially what he said. It was technician philosophy perfectly stated by the king himself.
> 
> "To some it's Napoleon, to some it's philosophical struggle, to me it's allegro con brio."


Ah so the ones who believed it was 'Napoleon' believed that Napoleon appeared during performances? For goodness sake, do you really think we are all literalists and cannot read between the lines as to what Toscanini meant?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Ah so the ones who believed it was 'Napoleon' believed that Napoleon appeared during performances? For goodness sake, do you really think we are all literalists and cannot read between the lines as to what Toscanini meant?


Huh? You were the one who asked for the exact quote.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Huh? You were the one who asked for the exact quote.


But strangely enough 
(i) I knew the quote already
(ii) we are not all complete literalists like you appear to be


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem with Toscanini/Reiner is that spitfire orchestral execution only gets you so far. There is more to this repertoire than that. They're great in Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. But Beethoven requires more.
> 
> You know very well than Toscanini flaunted this idea, saying the Eroica is Allegro con brio, nothing more. He was wrong about that. But he sure was exciting. I will still listen to his Beethoven on occasion as an alternative to the guys who really understood how the music should go.


IMO the purpose of that quote is simply to emphasise that in Toscanini's opinion we cannot objectively claim it to have any other purpose than the music itself. It's non-dramatic music, not operatic. In its very essence, the score of Eroica is nothing more than the notes and the markings, i.e Allegro con brio. Composer's intentions can give meaning to the musical piece but in my opinion not to the music itself. Music is still always music. I don't see how pure music could be inherently religious, nihilistic, totalitarian, evil, morally good etc. If you look at it his way, Toscanini wasn't mistaken.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Furtwangler and Klemperer were indeed very similar except in one critical aspect: flexibility of phrasing. If you like to hear the tempo adjusted according to the harmonic narrative as I do, then Furtwangler's your guy. If you prefer a more steady tempo, then opt for Klemperer.

There are many who think Furtwangler's flexibility sounded more natural in Brahms than in Beethoven. And then the least amount of controversy is when we get to Bruckner and Wagner.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> (ii) we are not all complete literalists like you appear to be


I still have no idea what you are trying to say here. Could you be more...literal?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> IMO the purpose of that quote is simply to emphasise that in Toscanini's opinion we cannot objectively claim it to have any other purpose than the music itself. It's non-dramatic music, not operatic. In its very essence, the score of Eroica is nothing more than the notes and the markings, i.e Allegro con brio. Composer's intentions can give meaning to the musical piece but in my opinion not to the music itself. Music is still always music. I don't see how pure music could be inherently religious, nihilistic, totalitarian, evil, morally good etc. If you look at it his way, Toscanini wasn't mistaken.


The point is there is emotional connection to the music beyond just repeating musical markings. For example, in the Eroica's marche funebre, Furtwangler characterized it as "tearless grief."

I am a performing musician myself. I know what it is like when you are simply trying to get notes, rhythms, and dynamics, and simply trying to keep the same tempo together, vs when you have an idea in your head of why you are performing, what you are trying to convey, what the music means to you. It is a world of difference.

The irony is...I don't believe Toscanini. His performances were actually often quite emotional and individual, despite his insistence that he was being an objective conduit of the written score.


----------



## Enthusiast

Heck148 said:


> .......BS.......


I'm glad I came to the thread with a really high intellectual level of dialogue.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The point is there is emotional connection to the music beyond just repeating musical markings. For example, in the Eroica's marche funebre, Furtwangler characterized it as "tearless grief."
> 
> I am a performing musician myself. I know what it is like when you are simply trying to get notes, rhythms, and dynamics, and simply trying to keep the same tempo together, vs when you have an idea in your head of why you are performing, what you are trying to convey, what the music means to you. It is a world of difference.
> 
> The irony is...I don't believe Toscanini. *His performances were actually often quite emotional and individual*, despite his insistence that he was being an objective conduit of the written score.


Of course they were. he was Italian. What he took exception to were what he considered unacceptable liberties with the score. That has nothing to do with interpretation. As a performing musician I would have thought that was obvious to you.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem with Toscanini/Reiner is that spitfire orchestral execution only gets you so far. There is more to this repertoire than that. They're great in Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. But Beethoven requires more.


....More BS......


----------



## JAS

Enthusiast said:


> I'm glad I came to the thread with a really high intellectual level of dialogue.


I believe that this is common TC shorthand for "I think what you have stated disagrees with my own views on the subject currently under discussion."


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> I believe that this is common TC shorthand for "I think what you have stated disagrees with my own views on the subject currently under discussion."


That's a polite way to put it. :devil:


----------



## Enthusiast

Ooh he's a real little devil!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> ....More BS......


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


>


Even more BS.........


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Even more BS.........


You're big on the erudite replies today.

No, it's not BS. The position we come from determines how we evaluate. I'm not looking for the same things in music that you are and vice versa. That is painfully obvious in our discussions.

For me spirit of the music comes first. I want to know why I am performing a work and what I am trying to convey. Everything single consideration stems from that. The truth within the music. The connection. I gravitate to conductors who value those qualities above all else - Furtwangler, Barbirolli, Horenstein. Conductors who have obviously thought deeply about a work, what it means, and how to convey that meaning. I am bored by conductors who generically prioritize technique and execution, as if the music simply speaks for itself - Toscanini, Reiner, Szell, Solti. Conductors who see perfect execution as an end in itself and dismiss others as "sloppy" if they don't prioritize the same thing.

I don't see music as a vehicle for impressing people. I see music as a means towards connection and truth.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're big on the erudite replies today.
> 
> No, it's not BS. The position we come from determines how we evaluate. I'm not looking for the same things in music that you are and vice versa. That is painfully obvious in our discussions.
> 
> For me spirit of the music comes first. I want to know why I am performing a work and what I am trying to convey. Everything single consideration stems from that. *The truth within the music.* The connection. I gravitate to conductors who value those qualities above all else - Furtwangler, Barbirolli, Horenstein. Conductors who have obviously thought deeply about a work, what it means, and how to convey that meaning. I am bored by conductors who generically prioritize technique and execution, as if the music simply speaks for itself - Toscanini, Reiner, Szell, Solti. Conductors who see perfect execution as an end in itself and dismiss others as "sloppy" if they don't prioritize the same thing.
> 
> I don't see music as a vehicle for impressing people. I see music as a means towards connection and truth.


But how are we supposed to recognise that truth if we hear and understand music differently? How can the notes convey a certain objective truth? That's what I was to some extent talking about in my last post. I also don't know on what basis we could say that one interpretation is more truthful than the other. They are all different understandings and some appeal to us more than the others partially because we share similar views as the conductor whose interpretation we like.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> But how are we supposed to recognise that truth if we hear and understand music differently? How can the notes convey a certain objective truth? That's what I was to some extent talking about in my last post. I also don't know on what basis we could say that one interpretation is more truthful than the other. They are all different understandings and some appeal to us more than the others partially because we share similar views as the conductor whose interpretation we like.


Well, that's the whole point of the cartoon. People who want perfect execution will gravitate towards that. People who want spirit of the music will gravitate towards that. Obviously Furtwangler understood the truth inherent in the music to have attracted the following he did and does. The perfectionist crowd only hears the outer shell of what he is doing because their standards for listening are different.


----------



## Merl

..............


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, that's the whole point of the cartoon. People who want perfect execution will gravitate towards that. People who want spirit of the music will gravitate towards that. Obviously Furtwangler understood the truth inherent in the music to have attracted the following he did and does. The perfectionist crowd only hears the outer shell of what he is doing because their standards for listening are different.


How can music convey objective inherent truth? And what made only Furtwängler understand that truth? And if you understand that Furtwängler understood that truth then mustn't you understand it as well? How?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> How can music convey objective inherent truth? And what made only Furtwängler understand that truth? And if you understand that Furtwängler understood that truth then mustn't you understand it as well? How?


Did I say only Furtwangler? My point, again, is that his whole purpose was to convey that truth, and obviously he was successful or he would not have attracted the following he did. You're not trying to argue that people listen to Furtwangler for pinpoint accuracy, are you?


----------



## Knorf

Do I need to call on the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization to come in here and clean up the mess? Grab the "hazmat" suits.

My doctor tells me I need to limit my exposure to toxic Internet debates. So I must bid this thread _adieu_.

The good news is my lingering doubt has been assuaged. I am confident I need pay recordings of Furtwängler no further attention. I had been wondering. No longer! Thanks, all. Cheers.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Yeah, let's not go back to this straw man of the idea that Furtwangler had a monopoly on truth. NO ONE is saying that.


----------



## Red Terror

Man has always had a weak grasp of the truth.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Did I say only Furtwangler? My point, again, is that his whole purpose was to convey that truth, and obviously he was successful or he would not have attracted the following he did. You're not trying to argue that people listen to Furtwangler for pinpoint accuracy, are you?


I'm absolutely not. I'm just trying to understand how can music convey any such inherent truth?

I don't see how one could claim that a piece is inherently "something" because that should, correct me if I'm wrong, mean that it can be perceived objectively as this "something". This inherent objective truth should be apparent for not only Furtwängler and a few others, but for significantly more people. Also, if Furtwängler and some others understood it, why aren't their interpretation identical if this truth was indeed objective? Music is abstract by nature and in my opinion its goal, in contrast to many other arts, is not to represent the exterior world but something less concrete.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Do I need to call on the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization to come in here and clean up the mess? Grab the "hazmat" suits.
> 
> My doctor tells me I need to limit my exposure to toxic Internet debates. So I must bid this thread _adieu_.
> 
> The good news is my lingering doubt has been assuaged. I am confident I need pay recordings of Furtwängler no further attention. I had been wondering. No longer! Thanks, all. Cheers.


I'm joining you, mate. I advise anyone with any sense to do the same. Once I saw a triple post I knew it was time to concentrate on something more fulfilling (like putting the bins out).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> I'm absolutely not. I'm just trying to understand how can music convey any such inherent truth?
> 
> I don't see how one could claim that a piece is inherently "something" because that should, correct me if I'm wrong, mean that it can be perceived objectively as this "something". This inherent objective truth should be apparent for not only Furtwängler and a few others, but for significantly more people. Also, if Furtwängler and some others understood it, why aren't their interpretation identical if this truth was indeed objective? Music is abstract by nature and in my opinion its goal, in contrast to many other arts, is not to represent the exterior world but something less concrete.


You are totally missing the point. Furtwangler's greatness was not in possessing the truth, it was in continually seeking the truth. His conception of a work was never "finished." It was never "perfect." Sometimes it could change wildly from one day to the next. Barbirolli was like this too. It was Toscanini who saw the score as self-evident.

There is an old saying that Beethoven's music was better than it could ever be played.

Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. We can only hope to approximate it.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, that's the whole point of the cartoon. People who want perfect execution will gravitate towards that. People who want spirit of the music will gravitate towards that. Obviously Furtwangler understood the truth inherent in the music to have attracted the following he did and does. The perfectionist crowd only hears the outer shell of what he is doing because their standards for listening are different.


Oh for goodness sake! So musicians who want to play all the right notes gravitate towards something which isn't the truth and people who play the wrong ones gravitate towards the truth. What a load of sentimental twaddle! Like dear old Stanley Baldwin used to say, "I'm not clever, I'm just honest!" As if you couldn't be clever and honest at the same time! I can assure you there are plenty of musicians who can bring out the 'truth' of the music (whatever that might be) while still playing all the right notes. If not I should be playing to sold-out halls after the pandemic as playing the wrong notes (and getting to the truth of the music) is something I happen to be rather good at!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are totally missing the point. Furtwangler's greatness was not in possessing the truth, it was in continually seeking the truth. His conception of a work was never "finished." It was never "perfect." Sometimes it could change wildly from one day to the next. Barbirolli was like this too. It was Toscanini who saw the score as self-evident.
> 
> There is an old saying that Beethoven's music was better than it could ever be played.
> 
> Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. *We can only hope to approximate it.*


And some of his performances were sure approximate! :lol:


----------



## Guest

It seems like Furtwangler rivals even Karajan in inspiring internet vitriol. 

I find the most fascinating thing about him to be the name. There's a brand of jelly in the U.S. which used to have the advertising tag line, "with a name like Schmuckers, it has to be good."

He was on the "takes more liberties with the score" side of the spectrum, compared with Szell, Solti, Reiner, Toscanini, who were on the "takes less liberties" side of the spectrum. Often Furtwangler's liberties were felicitous, not always. The claims about "truth" miss the point. It doesn't matter if it is "true," it matters if you can make it seem so.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *You are totally missing the point. Furtwangler's greatness was not in possessing the truth, it was in continually seeking the truth.*His conception of a work was never "finished." It was never "perfect." Sometimes it could change wildly from one day to the next. Barbirolli was like this too. It was Toscanini who saw the score as self-evident.
> 
> There is an old saying that Beethoven's music was better than it could ever be played.
> 
> Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. We can only hope to approximate it.


Pardon if I did. I based my own points on your previous posts.

I guess I'm joining with Merl and Knorf though. Some great _Tannhäuser_ recordings are waiting to be listened to !


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're big on the erudite replies today.


you're big on BS today.



> as if the music simply speaks for itself


It does speak for itself, as long as you don't clutter it up with a lot of non-musical, phony metaphysical, pseudo-philosophical garbage.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Obviously Furtwangler understood the truth inherent in the music to have attracted the following he did and does....


LOL!! complete, utter horse-dung....give it a break BH....


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> My doctor tells me I need to limit my exposure to toxic Internet debates. So I must bid this thread _adieu_.


Yup!! It's just not worth it to becoming entangled in this maelstrom of musical miasma. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> I'm joining you, mate. I advise anyone with any sense to do the same.


you've got it Bro....it's [still] unreal.


----------



## Guest

Heck148 said:


> you've got it Bro....it's [still] unreal.


You think that referring to other people's opinions as garbage is not toxic?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! complete, utter horse-dung....give it a break BH....


So what's the appeal of Furtwangler then? What is your explanation for his popularity still today?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> You think that referring to other people's opinions as garbage is not toxic?


It's his own insecurity lashing out. Must win at all costs. Kind of like Toscanini. Claim to have a monopoly on authenticity and be as driven and perfect as possible, and then nobody can doubt you. The first rule of thumb for a real truth-seeker is to admit that you do not and cannot ever fully know it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Oh for goodness sake! So musicians who want to play all the right notes gravitate towards something which isn't the truth and people who play the wrong ones gravitate towards the truth.


No. Those who reduce music to nothing more than pedantic precision inherently and self-servingly limit the possibilities within the score.

Seeking truth and being correct are two completely opposite things.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

This is inching further and further away from a discussion about music to a discussion about fundamental worldviews - the belief in higher truth vs. materialism. Ultimately conversation about the Furtwängler school vs. the Toscanini school leads to this because it is about the _rationale_ behind making art and not just the outward product. However, I don't think much contructive conversation wil ensue by continuing down that rabbit hole as everyone has their own personal stance and it comes perilously close to violating the forum rules.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's his own insecurity lashing out. Must win at all costs. Kind of like Toscanini. Claim to have a monopoly on authenticity and be as driven and perfect as possible, and then nobody can doubt you. The first rule of thumb for a real truth-seeker is to admit that you do not and cannot ever fully know it.


LOL!! forget it, BH...you're obviously not selling your product....nobody's buying....quit before you dig yourself in deeper...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! forget it, BH...you're obviously not selling your product....nobody's buying....quit before you dig yourself in deeper...


I'm not selling anything. I am explaining the fascination with Furtwangler.


----------



## DavidA

Interesting that Alex Ross reviewing Furtwangler’swartime recordings in the Hew Yorker says:

‘Nor are Furtwängler’s legendarily explosive accounts of nineteenth-century repertory beyond criticism. As the hours went by, I found myself tiring of his determination to wring significance from every phrase. The atmosphere is always dire; there is a dearth of pleasure, grace, and wit. Furtwängler often criticized what he called an “American” manner of orchestral playing—soulless, machinelike, monotonous. He associated that style with Toscanini, whose fame obsessed him inordinately. But he, too, was prone to a certain hectoring relentlessness. He brings an astonishing demonic energy to the final movements of the Beethoven Seventh and the Schubert Ninth, but the effect is more battering than it is uplifting.‘


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Interesting that Alex Ross reviewing Furtwangler'swartime recordings in the Hew Yorker says:
> 
> 'Nor are Furtwängler's legendarily explosive accounts of nineteenth-century repertory beyond criticism. As the hours went by, I found myself tiring of his determination to wring significance from every phrase. The atmosphere is always dire; there is a dearth of pleasure, grace, and wit. Furtwängler often criticized what he called an "American" manner of orchestral playing-soulless, machinelike, monotonous. He associated that style with Toscanini, whose fame obsessed him inordinately. But he, too, was prone to a certain hectoring relentlessness. He brings an astonishing demonic energy to the final movements of the Beethoven Seventh and the Schubert Ninth, but the effect is more battering than it is uplifting.'


Interesting, as I actually find him too driven in both those works in his wartime recordings. His 1953 BPO recordings of both however are my reference versions. Also, his wartime Pastorale does not strike the right chord. His 1954 Pastorale is a different story. Just beautiful.

By contrast, his wartime Beethoven 3rd, 5th, and 9th are all fantastic, though I prefer the 1947 5th that was his first performance after the war. Just unbelievable energy, particularly in the finale.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No. Those who reduce music to nothing more than pedantic precision inherently and self-servingly limit the possibilities within the score.
> 
> Seeking truth and being correct are two completely opposite things.


This is a straw man that probably should be retired. The "objective" conductors were not pedantic, they didn't seek to "reduce" music to "precision" and limit the possibilities. They had a different aesthetic and I see no reason to belittle them because their conception of the works they conducted was less idiosyncratic than Furtwangler. Some might say Furtwangler's interpretive touches "bring out" the "truth" but when one of these interpretive touches contradicts the listeners conception of he music it may be perceived as obscuring the "truth" whatever that is. There are many different ways to performa a great piece of music and unless there is technical incompetence involved I am very reluctant to label one approach "better" than another.

I think Furtwangler's interpretations can be compelling because they are from a different time, when his mannerisms were part of the style. They can be interesting for the same reason I find myself very interested in 60 year old recordings of French orchestras performed on instruments that are no longer manufactured. It's different, and there is a vividness to that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> This is a straw man that probably should be retired. The "objective" conductors were not pedantic, they didn't seek to "reduce" music to "precision" and limit the possibilities. They had a different aesthetic and I see no reason to belittle them because their conception of the works they conducted was less idiosyncratic than Furtwangler. Some might say Furtwangler's interpretive touches "bring out" the "truth" but when one of these interpretive touches contradicts the listeners conception of he music it may be perceived as obscuring the "truth" whatever that is. There are many different ways to performa a great piece of music and unless there is technical incompetence involved I am very reluctant to label one approach "better" than another.
> 
> I think Furtwangler's interpretations can be compelling because they are from a different time, when his mannerisms were part of the style. They can be interesting for the same reason I find myself very interested in 60 year old recordings of French orchestras performed on instruments that are no longer manufactured. It's different, and there is a vividness to that.


You cannot call it a straw man when the conductors themselves referred to themselves as objectivists and the score as a self-evident, finished product. The attitude informs the music-making, even though they were not actually objective in practice.

And again, for the last time, the point is not Furtwangler possessing the truth. It is his continuous pursuit of truth. He could often disagree with himself from one day to the next and thus actually find agreement with the listener in your post.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot call it a straw man when the conductors themselves referred to themselves as objectivists and the score as a self-evident, finished product. The attitude informs the music-making, even though they were not actually objective in practice.
> 
> And again, for the last time, the point is not Furtwangler possessing the truth. It is his continuous pursuit of truth. He could often disagree with himself from one day to the next and thus actually find agreement with the listener in your post.


This is no argument. You are saying that playing what the score demands is wrong? Sorry the straw man should be retired without a pension


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot call it a straw man when the conductors themselves referred to themselves as objectivists and the score as a self-evident, finished product. The attitude informs the music-making, even though they were not actually objective in practice.
> 
> And again, for the last time, the point is not Furtwangler possessing the truth. It is his continuous pursuit of truth. He could often disagree with himself from one day to the next and thus actually find agreement with the listener in your post.


Let's not accuse "the objectivists," whoever hey are. I recently got the Szell Edition which comes with an elaborate booklet emblazoned with Szell's motto, which was (paraphrasing) "Think with your Heart, Feel with your head." He did not value precision for its own sake. I hate to put words into his mouth, but I think he thought that the notes on the page contained required information as to the expressive details appropriate for performance.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And again, for the last time, the point is not Furtwangler possessing the truth. It is his continuous pursuit of truth. He could often disagree with himself from one day to the next and thus actually find agreement with the listener in your post.


You are using words not according to their conventional meaning.

'Truth' is a property of representations (words, pictures, maps). Represetations are things that take the world to be in some particualr way as opposed to some other way. I.e. 'There is a futile debte taking place here' takes the world to be a certain way (futile) in a certain location (this thread). My pictorial representation of a particular beach similarly takes a particular location to contain the things depicted in my drawing in the way they are so depicted (colour, proportion, location). Finally, my map of my local city takes my city to contain various roads at various spatial locations. All these are representations that express things that may or may not be *true*, given a) the semantic content of the representations (how they depict the world) and b) how the world actually is, objectively.

For something to 'pursue truth' is for it to take the world to be in a certain way: i.e. for it to be a representation. Music does not take the world to be in a certain way. Music is not representational. Thus, talk of truth is absolute ********.

There is only 'this conductor plays the music the way I like' or 'this conductor plays the music the way I don't like'. (Perhaps you might say 'this conductor plays the music the way Brahms would have intended' and is therefore more 'true to the composer's intentions' - but that's it, as far as 'truth' is concerned).


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> You are using words not according to their conventional meaning.
> 
> 'Truth' is a property of representations (words, pictures, maps). Represetations are things that take the world to be in some particualr way as opposed to some other way. I.e. 'There is a futile debte taking place here' takes the world to be a certain way (futile) in a certain location (this thread). My pictorial representation of a particular beach similarly takes a particular location to contain the things depicted in my drawing in the way they are so depicted (colour, proportion, location). Finally, my map of my local city takes my city to contain various roads at various spatial locations. All these are representations that express things that may or may not be *true*, given a) the semantic content of the representations (how they depict the world) and b) how the world actually is, objectively.
> 
> For something to 'pursue truth' is for it to take the world to be in a certain way: i.e. for it to be a representation. Music does not take the world to be in a certain way. Music is not representational. Thus, talk of truth is absolute ********.
> 
> There is only 'this conductor plays the music the way I like' or 'this conductor plays the music the way I don't like'. (Perhaps you might say 'this conductor plays the music the way Brahms would have intended' and is therefore more 'true to the composer's intentions' - but that's it, as far as 'truth' is concerned).


I mean, disregarding the fact that I kinda doubt that everyone has the same definition of truth, how, in your definition, does one determine the world as it objectively is (to therefore determine the truth of a representation) without falling into some circular logic loops.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I mean, disregarding the fact that I kinda doubt that everyone has the same definition of truth


It doesn't matter what our 'personal' definitions are. What matters is the proper definition. Without taking care to ensure we are using the definition, we will talk past one another endlessly. Sometimes I get the feeling certain people prefer this state of affairs, as it gives them occasion to have some horse to flog without constraint.



BachIsBest said:


> how, in your definition, does one determine the world as it objectively is (to therefore determine the truth of a representation) without falling into some circular logic loops.


It's quite simple, really. If your map tells you no road exists where it obviously does, you get hit by a car.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Truth in this context is not something purely subjective nor is it following the precise instructions in the score, if that is even possible. Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it’s about. You can perform precisely and accurately without achieving any of that.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it's about.


There you go again. Truth cannot be what you say it is, because then that would make truth a subjective affair, which is to use the term 'truth' incorrectly. Truth is associated with objectivity, not subjectivity.

Why insist on dressing-up a personal preferece in the garb of the absolute?


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Truth in this context is not something purely subjective not is it following the precise instructions in the score, if that is even possible. Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it's about. You can perform precisely and accurately without achieving any of that.


As far as I can discern, "truth" in music is when you like it.

I like when conductors adhere to the score, I like when conductors take liberties that I feel brings out different aspects of the music. I don't see why it is necessary to cloud the distinction by labeling one "truth."

It seems self evident to me that Furtwangler, who performed the same music differently during the war years and after the war was incorporating extra-musical associations in his performances. I think that is fine, but I think that, if anything, it makes Furtwangler farther from the "truth" of the music itself.

Of course, the wonderful thing is that "truth" is an almost meaningless term when applied to musical performance, and so we can all twist the definition to our own purposes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> There you go again. Truth cannot be what you say it is, because then that would make truth a subjective affair, which is to use the term 'truth' incorrectly. Truth is associated with objectivity, not subjectivity.
> 
> Why insist on dressing-up a personal preferece in the garb of the absolute?


Because truth is something beyond our grasp that we are always searching for. It is not "objective" in the sense of being obvious from the printed notes, as Toscanini believed. But neither is it subjective in that it is simply up to personal whims, a form of musical relativism. There is a right road to truth and a wrong road.

The point of all this is that this is what _Furtwangler_ believed. Disagreeing with me about it is immaterial to the subject at hand.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> It seems self evident to me that Furtwangler, who performed the same music differently during the war years and after the war was incorporating extra-musical associations in his performances. I think that is fine, but I think that, if anything, it makes Furtwangler farther from the "truth" of the music itself.


Well that is certainly not the way Furtwangler himself saw it, and I tend to agree with him. He was not simply being willful for the sake of being willful. He thought there was a right way to the music's essence and that he was following that path. Not always perfectly, as he was constantly rethinking the score. It is no different than a philosopher who constantly rethinks his theories on the meaning of the universe.

Toscanini and his ilk avoided the entire discussion and made no bones about it. Just play the music as written is the way he saw it. The difference is a lot deeper than simply two different ways to play music. The two men were fundamentally at odds in their view of life. Toscanini saw philosophical meaning and discussion as either self-evident or not worth thinking about. Furtwangler was steeped in it.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because truth is something beyond our grasp...


Now you seem to be using the word 'truth' to mean emotional resonance, or being 'at peace' with the universe, or something. You are mystifying and unenlightening in the way you discuss issues. You feel no sense of responsibiltity to use the social tools of discourse in an essentially cooperative/constructive way. I have very little respect for this.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...that we are always searching for


Speak for yourself, please, or at the very least for Fartwangler. I'm only searching for truth when I'm interested in my own or others' accurate depictions of the world. When I'm listening to music, I look for what makes my serotonin hit (at the end of the day).

You are precisely the same, yet you purport to be striving for the Alpha and Omega.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Now you seem to be using the word 'truth' to mean emotional resonance, or being 'at peace' with the universe, or something. You are mystifying and unenlightening in the way you discuss issues. *You feel no sense of responsibiltity to use the social tools of discourse in an essentially cooperative/constructive way. I have very little respect for this.*
> 
> Speak for yourself, please, or at the very least for Fartwangler. I'm only searching for truth when I'm interested in my own or others' accurate depictions of the world. When I'm listening to music, I look for what makes my serotonin hit (at the end of the day).
> 
> You are precisely the same, yet you purport to be striving for the Alpha and Omega.


Light up. Seriously.

I'm discussing truth in the same way as Furtwangler does with regards to music. He did not believe in musical relativism, and neither do I. Sorry that offends you.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm discussing truth in the same way as Furtwangler does with regards to music. He did not believe in musical relativism, and neither do I. Sorry that offends you.


Calling into question my motivation is cheap, when the issue is whether you are talking nonsense or not.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is not "objective" in the sense of being obvious from the printed notes, as Toscanini believed. But neither is it subjective in that it is simply up to personal whims, a form of musical relativism. There is a right road to truth and a wrong road.


I'm going to challenge you on this.

'Rightness', like 'truth', implies some kind of objective benchmark.

If it was just about the printed score you could just check the music against the score, to determine 'rightness'. If it's not about the printed score, then what determines when the *right road* has been taken?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Calling into question my motivation is cheap, when the issue is whether you are talking nonsense or not.
> 
> I'm going to challenge you on this.
> 
> If it's not about the printed score, then what determines when the *right road* has been taken. 'Rightness', like 'truth', implies some kind of objective benchmark.
> 
> If it was just about the printed score you could just check the music against the score, to determine 'rightness'.


Because the printed score by itself is an imperfect indicator. You have to do the mental work yourself. You have to make the mental judgment. It is not set out for you in easy-to-read stone. You have to figure it out. That's the whole point of being a great artist! That is why so many including myself revere Furtwangler's conducting. I believe he came closer to revealing the truth in these scores than any other conductor before or since. I can understand someone not agreeing with me. What I don't understand is why people get offended.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Perhaps an analogy can be drawn to acting - whenever an actor on stage or in a film plays a character, they have to study the character’s personality and “interpret” it - search for the truth in it - in order to breathe life and meaning into it. There is more to it than just proper diction, annunciation, and memory. That’s how I think musical performance should go, and that is just my opinion.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because the printed score by itself is an imperfect indicator. You have to do the mental work yourself. You have to make the mental judgment. It is not set out for you in easy-to-read stone. You have to figure it out. That's the whole point of being a great artist! That is why so many including myself revere Furtwangler's conducting. I believe he came closer to revealing the truth in these scores than any other conductor before or since. I can understand someone not agreeing with me. What I don't understand is why people get offended.


First, I would suggest not putting the burden on the other person by calling into question their emotional state and/or motivation. I'm not 'offended', I just think you are talking non-_sense_, respectfully.

Second, I'm not sure you realise it, but saying you have some access to the 'truth' about how a musical performance should go, when all that's really going on is that you happen to subjectively prefer a certain musical performance, smacks a bit of self-righteousness.

Third (and most importantly), you didn't answer the main problem: which is how one knows when the 'truth' in the score has been reached? What is the objective mark a conductor's 'mental _judgement_' may or may not hit? I think it's simply your own subjective preference: quite literally, your sense of the warm-fuzzies from hearing a performance you like. But you seem to have something more objective in mind. I want to know what this is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> First, I would suggest not putting the burden on the other person by calling into question their emotional state and/or motivation. I'm not 'offended', I just think you are talking non-_sense_, respectfully.
> 
> Second, I'm not sure you realise it, but saying you have some access to the 'truth' about how a musical performance should go, when all that's really going on is that you happen to subjectively prefer a certain musical performance, smacks a bit of self-righteousness.
> 
> Third (and most importantly), you didn't answer the main problem: which is how one knows when the 'truth' in the score has been reached? What is the objective mark a conductor's 'mental _judgement_' may or may not hit? I think it's simply your own subjective preference: quite literally, your sense of the warm-fuzzies from hearing a performance you like. But you seem to have something more objective in mind. I want to know what this is.


First, your post where you stated "You feel no sense of responsibility...I have no respect for this" sounded like offense taken.

Second, truth can be observed by anyone. That is what makes it truth. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth. That's the great thing about it.

Third, I don't how else to explain something which is second nature to me. The idea of taking a score and simply interpreting it the right way, or trying to at least. Are you a musician? I'm not the type to just lackadaisically say hey, let's just try it this way. I have strong opinions about how the music should go. And when the "right way" happens in performance, it is the most awesome thing. It happens when I hear a great recording. It is even better when you are in the performance. Everyone in the room feels it. It's wonderful.

You seem really stuck on this question of "who determines what is truth." It is both a communal thing and an individual thing. It is both universal and something which must be found through personal discovery. Nobody determines truth. It just exists. And no one can ever fully grasp it. That's the rub.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You seem really stuck on this question of "who determines what is truth." It is both a communal thing and an individual thing. It is both universal and something which must be found through personal discovery. Nobody determines truth. It just exists. And no one can ever fully grasp it. That's the rub.


But truth, by its very definition, is not something that's an 'individual thing'. _That's _the rub!

What stops me from saying it's true that mass murder results in ending up in heaven with 50 virgins, or that it's true that COVID is a political ruise, etc etc, if truth is 'individual'?!

We also impoverish discourse by using a word that has one meaning (Truth, being objective) when we could simple use another word according to its proper meaning (Preference, being subjective).

Here's the actual definition of truth:

the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

Expanded:

-that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"

-a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"


----------



## RogerWaters

Your position remains indefensible, in my view. Let's see why:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The idea of taking a score and simply interpreting it the right way, or trying to at least.


Define 'right way' in a sense that doesn't simply fall back on either:

a) the score, or
b) 'what I prefer'

Please don't fall back on...



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Everyone in the room feels it. It's wonderful.


...because this is obviously naive. There will always be some people who aren't feeling it, and some who are. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for music critics, no need for TC to discuss the 'merits' of different composers and perfomances and conductors, etc.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Define 'right way' in a sense that doesn't simply fall back on either:
> 
> a) the score, or
> b) 'what I prefer'


I already did that at the very beginning of this discussion. It is tapping into that essence that connects us as humans. And sure I don't mean an entire crowd will respond positively with no exceptions. You know when the consensus is positive and when it is lukewarm.

Furtwängler's response from his audience and rapid ascent to the highest positions in Europe speaks for itself. He was tapping into something real which people responded to. And the response still carries remarkably to this day.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He was tapping into something real which people responded to


Indeed, the _preferences_ of the people who happened to respond to him.

But you seem to want to say Fartwangler was tapping into something more meaty/objective that mere preferences. Like the following...



Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is tapping into that essence that connects us as humans


This is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. And what of the people whose neurons are not so titilated by Fartwangler's batton? Do they lack 'the essence that connects us as humans'?! What baloney!


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well that is certainly not the way Furtwangler himself saw it, and I tend to agree with him. He was not simply being willful for the sake of being willful. He thought there was a right way to the music's essence and that he was following that path. Not always perfectly, as he was constantly rethinking the score. It is no different than a philosopher who constantly rethinks his theories on the meaning of the universe.
> 
> Toscanini and his ilk avoided the entire discussion and made no bones about it. Just play the music as written is the way he saw it. The difference is a lot deeper than simply two different ways to play music. The two men were fundamentally at odds in their view of life. Toscanini saw philosophical meaning and discussion as either self-evident or not worth thinking about. Furtwangler was steeped in it.


What amazes me is that it doesn't occur to you that conductors you don't like are also trying to find the "essence" or "truth" of the music they were performing. You have simply equated your own taste with "truth."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> What amazes me is that it doesn't occur to you that conductors you don't like are also trying to find the "essence" or "truth" of the music they were performing. You have simply equated your own taste with "truth."


Sir, they've been quoted with glee in this thread by one of their disciples, and the idea of essence and truth mocked. Again, I'm not equating my taste to anything except the pursuit of truth. Some ridicule this very exercise.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sir, they've been quoted with glee in this thread by one of their disciples, and the idea of essence and truth mocked. Again, I'm not equating my taste to anything except the pursuit of truth. Some ridicule this very exercise.


Nonsense. What is being ridiculed is the idea music is something that can possibly aim at truth in the first place, along with the related idea that conductor X can capture truth (as opposed to preference) more than conductor Y.

What is not being ridiculed one iota is the pursuit of truth in science, philosophy, and in everyday situations where we utter claims that purport to represent the world accurately. In fact, I defended this idea when I rediculed your assertion that truth is 'individual' as opposed to objective.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No. Those who reduce music to nothing more than pedantic precision inherently and self-servingly limit the possibilities within the score.
> 
> Seeking truth and being correct are two completely opposite things.


You make me laugh. This is not truth it's the emperors new clothes. The 'truth' lies in the score and in what the composer has written and a great musician will Bring it out in their interpretation. What you are saying you like a nova romantic interpretation and telling us that is 'truth'.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because truth is something beyond our grasp that we are always searching for. It is not "objective" in the sense of being obvious from the printed notes, as Toscanini believed. But neither is it subjective in that it is simply up to personal whims, a form of musical relativism. There is a right road to truth and a wrong road.
> 
> The point of all this is that this is what _Furtwangler_ believed. Disagreeing with me about it is immaterial to the subject at hand.


Well of course if truth is something beyond our grasp and we were always searching for it what is the point? Let's all not bother. This is actually a pointless discussion because you're actually saying what you believe is true the music is the way I like it. That is something we can all say. He just a completely subjective view dressed up as the Emperors new clothes.
I can say that Karajan or Toscanini or Pappano are also seeking after truth. Of course they are. Just that you think that the guy who you like is the biggest seeker the truth. You're doing your old trick of trying to dress up a completely subjective argument as an objective one


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> It doesn't matter what our 'personal' definitions are. What matters is the proper definition. Without taking care to ensure we are using the definition, we will talk past one another endlessly. Sometimes I get the feeling certain people prefer this state of affairs, as it gives them occasion to have some horse to flog without constraint.


The fact that some philosophers have spent large portions of their careers examining the definition of truth should probably tell you that it is not so cut and dry. It is good to agree on definitions in a debate (of course) but I don't think there is one widely accepted definition of truth; although, there certainly is a widely accepted intuitive notion of truth but precisely defining the intuitive often leads to complications as in this case.



RogerWaters said:


> It's quite simple, really. If your map tells you no road exists where it obviously does, you get hit by a car.


Is it though? The problem is evaluating "how the world is objectively" inevitably goes through the filter of human perception which is innately subjective. Furthermore, incomplete information is often all that is available; your map could tell you that there is no road, you are struck by a metal object, presume it is a car and your map incorrect, but the object was in fact a train (please disregard how one is making these presumptions whilst dead).

Furthermore, the idea of truth as a relation between representations of phenomenological reality, and phenomenological reality itself (which, you can correct me if I'm wrong in evaluating your viewpoint) has the problem of rendering things outside the domain of truth which should, I think most people would agree, be within. Certainly, logic must be discounted as being true since, being entirely abstract, it is not a representation of anything; it follows that mathematics is also outside of truth. The statement 2+2=4 follows from the definitions of 2 and 4 and certainly can't be true in an innate sense using the representation theory of truth.

Anyways, although this is dangerously off-topic, my final point is the idea of music containing inherent truth is not ridiculous from the standpoint of an intuitive notion of truth, the representation theory of truth is not flawless, and, ultimately, I don't see why this could be used as an argument against Brahsianhorn's ideas without some sort of further development.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sir, they've been quoted with glee in this thread by one of their disciples, and the idea of essence and truth mocked. Again, I'm not equating my taste to anything except the pursuit of truth. Some ridicule this very exercise.


This is degenerating into semantics. I don't think "truth" is the right word. Meriam Webster gives three basic definitions:

1) the body of real things, events, and facts
2) the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
3) sincerity in action, character, and utterance

The only one of these three that I can imagine being properly applied to a performance of music is number 3. Even then, it is not so much a property of the performance as it is a property of the performers character. I don't see how it an be argued that Furtwangler's interpretation are better characterized by a "search for truth" compared with someone like Szell, who had an equally sincere belief in the correctness of his interpretation, and who sought to base it on study of the score and the attempt to understand the composers intent. I don't see why I should think Furtwangler's self-indulgent interpretation, however effective, is "truth."

Perhaps you don't agree, but I've said all I have to say.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sir, they've been quoted with glee in this thread by one of their disciples, and the idea of essence and truth mocked. Again, I'm not equating my taste to anything except the pursuit of truth. Some ridicule this very exercise.


You dress up your musical preferences in a fancy garb called a 'search for truth'. I just call it my preferences. It might not give me such a one-upmanship Feeling but it is I think more honest


----------



## JAS

So much of this thread feels like an application of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language games.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Let's hear Furtwangler speak for himself. Again, the point is simple. He believed in an objectively true rendering of the score, but he didn't believe it was self-evident from just the score itself.

At 15:00 (whoever uploaded this apparently didn't know you can pick your own thumbnail!)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Twenty years ago I wrote a law school paper comparing Furtwangler and Toscanini. My thesis was that in both disciplines, neither the musical score nor the written law speak for themselves. Interpretation is unavoidable. The spirit of the music and the spirit of the law must govern.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He believed in an objectively true rendering of the score


"He believed in an objectively true rendering".

This is a claim that the truth of the matter is not subjective. Hence, his belief is that if I disagree with that truth then I am wrong, because his claim is one of objective truth, not subjective impression. It does not really help to consider that he might acknowledge that he had not managed yet to determine the complete truth, because it would remain the case that any rendering which was contrary to his partial understanding, rather than a completion of it, would be wrong. After all, he must have believed that he was aiming towards this truth and had some insight into it, otherwise it is irrelevant. This appears to close the door on the potential validity of other interpretations, if they contradict the insights of those who are closer to the objective truth. The problem with this is: who decides whether A or B is the one who has the insight into truth, rather than being a false prophet?

It would appear that we have just stumbled across Platonists, holding that there is a World of Forms for music, where the perfect resides, with the physical world just providing performances that are shadows in Platos's cave.

Personally I can't be doing with Plato, but each to their own.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> "Hence, *his belief is that if I disagree with that truth then I am wrong*, because his claim is one of objective truth, not subjective impression. It does not really help to consider that he might acknowledge that he had not managed yet to determine the complete truth, because it would remain the case that any rendering which was contrary to his partial understanding, rather than a completion of it, would be wrong. After all, he must have believed that he was aiming towards this truth and had some insight into it, otherwise it is irrelevant.


The irony is that this is the same thing I run into when people on this board accuse me of speaking as if my opinion is fact. I may be right, I may be wrong. Present your case. Maybe it is more correct than mine. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth.

How hard is this to understand?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let's hear Furtwangler speak for himself. Again, the point is simple. *He believed in an objectively true rendering of the score, but he didn't believe it was self-evident from just the score itself.*


A glaring self-contradiction if ever I saw one! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Twenty years ago I wrote a law school paper comparing Furtwangler and Toscanini. My thesis was that in both disciplines, neither the musical score nor the written law speak for themselves. Interpretation is unavoidable. The spirit of the music and the spirit of the law must govern.


Yes, interpretation is unavoidable. All conductors interpret. The only difference is the source of their inspiration, reverent study of the score or navel gazing. Even "originalist" judges have to determine, somehow, what the creators of a law intended, which is a nontrivia taskl. Furtwangler was one to "legislate from the bench." I find no qualitative difference between Furtwangler and, say, Solti. Just a quantitative difference in the level of self-indulgence.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> Yes, interpretation is unavoidable. All conductors interpret. The only difference is the source of their inspiration, reverent study of the score or navel gazing. Even "originalist" judges have to determine, somehow, what the creators of a law intended, which is a nontrivia taskl. Furtwangler was one to "legislate from the bench." I find no qualitative difference between Furtwangler and, say, Solti. *Just a quantitative difference in the level of self-indulgence*.


And in my view Furtwangler was more true to the spirit of the score than Solti. My first exposure to this was when I purchased Furtwangler's Schubert 9th in the mid-90s after having already owned the Solti. I ended up selling off the Solti. Furtwangler's version sounded idiomatic, true to the spirit. Solti's seemed clinical and lifeless. I would argue that it is the rigid timebeaters who are being self-indulgent in showing off how precise and accurate they can be at the expense of the music's spirit.

So there.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The irony is that this is the same thing I run into when people on this board accuse me of speaking as if my opinion is fact. I may be right, I may be wrong. Present your case. Maybe it is more correct than mine. Nobody has a monopoly on the truth.
> 
> How hard is this to understand?


It's actually very hard to understand: that is the problem.

It's explicit in the quote you give that Furtwangler believed in an objective truth regarding the rendering of music, by which I take it he meant a performance. I don't even know what that means. I certainly don't understand how, given two distinct performances of a piece of music you could say that one was "true" and the other was, what (?), "false".

I have no problem with some people generally preferring Furtwangler, and others generally preferring Toscanini, and others going for whoever they like. I may agree with them or not, but that's just my preference.

I think it is the Furtwangler quote, though, which is going against that position, as by suggesting the existence of some objectively true rendering it says precisely that some are right and some are wrong. That raises two problems for me: (i) I don't think that this is a meaningful statement, and (ii) even if you accept that it has some sort of meaning, it is of no help when looking at actual performances as people will then just disagree about how to realise this "truth".

So what this view does is turn something we can just agree to differ about into a matter of right and wrong, and it then gives us no assistance in working out which is which.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> I think it is the Furtwangler quote, though, which is going against that position, as by suggesting the existence of some objectively true rendering it says precisely that some are right and some are wrong.


There is no such thing as a 100% "right" performance nor a 100% "wrong" performance.

I feel like we are at a point where your only interest is to try and "win" an argument by grossly simplifying your "opponent's" position. At that point it ceases being a meaningful discussion.

And that brings us to the salient point: I am discussing, trying to get to truth. You are trying to win an argument and prove who is right and who is wrong. That's not the point.

What is truth? No one knows, but everyone has the ability to seek it.

Who has authority over the truth? No one.


----------



## Guest

It boils down to you think Furtwangler had more skill and/or imagination is finding the most convincing way to perform a work. I will grant you that he was an extraordinary talent. He had an objective skill in getting a unique sound from an orchestra, the quality of his "interpretations" is largely a matter of taste. I don't know why you feel the need to push the silly idea that he was the only conductor "seeking truth," especially since "truth" in a musical performance is just a metaphor, and not the actual definition of the work truth, which means "in accord with facts or reality." You are doing a disservice to Furtwangler by distracting from his actual music talents in favor of a sophomoric debate on the meaning of truth.

Now, I am really done.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> It boils down to you think Furtwangler had more skill and/or imagination is finding the most convincing way to perform a work. I will grant you that he was an extraordinary talent. He had an objective skill in getting a unique sound from an orchestra, the quality of his "interpretations" is largely a matter of taste. I don't know why you feel the need to push the silly idea that he was the only conductor "seeking truth," especially since "truth" in a musical performance is just a metaphor, and not the actual definition of the work truth, which means "in accord with facts or reality." You are doing a disservice to Furtwangler by distracting from his actual music talents in favor of a sophomoric debate on the meaning of truth.
> 
> Now, I am really done.


Once again, I am misquoted. Why do you insist on this?

I never said Furtwängler was the only conductor seeking truth. He defined it differently than others. Some agreed with his way, some did not.

I'm done too. If anyone else wants to proceed with misquoting me to feel superior, be my guest. I'm going to pop in some Furtwängler Beethoven. Think I'll play the 1943 Beethoven 4th.


----------



## RogerWaters

I'm going to continue because you avoided my post 674, as well as posts by others, which hold you to account on the crux of the issue. And because you _continue_ to state the following while at the same time playing the victim as though people are misquoting you:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Interpretation is unavoidable. The spirit of the music.... must govern.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> And in my view Furtwangler was more true to the spirit of the score than Solti.... So there.


Please define 'the spirit of the music' and 'being more true' to this mysterious 'spirit', in a way which does not:

1. Fall back on the score (this is obviously not an option for you becuase you have criticised following the score slavishly)
2. Fall back on the mere subjective preferences of yourself and other Fartwangler fans (this is _presumeably _not an option for you because you talk about the 'truth' of musical interpretations, and clearly have in mind something quasi-objective/more 'meaty' than mere preferences)

I don't believe you can appeal to either 1 or 2 above, for the reasons presented in brackets. Nor do I see any other plausible option you can appeal to. Hence, I _believe _your position is rationally indefensible.

Is my belief wrong?

:tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

All you are doing by denying me a third option is simply restating your position that there is no such thing as a “true” rendering of the music. My position is that there is such thing as a true rendering, but we can never reach it, nor will we ever agree on it. We can keep going in circles on that forever.

I will also again state that objective reproduction of the score is an impossibility. The conductor cannot escape making a subjective judgment.

I will also again state that just because I think Furtwängler is truer to Schubert’s 9th than Solti does not mean I am necessarily right. It’s just the way I see it. Heck will likely see it the opposite way.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I am also saying that objectivists (fidelity to the score) and subjectivists (score as an imperfect blueprint) BOTH believe that there is such thing as a true rendering of the score but disagree on how to get there. Both see themselves, obviously, as being right.

In my view, objectivists mistake simplicity and clarity for truth. They think subjectivists are “adding things.” Subjectivists are the ones IMO doing the real work required while objectivists are taking the simple i.e. wrong way out.

All of these observations can be applied to the legal profession as well.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My position is that there is such thing as a true rendering


You STILL have not explained what, on earth, you mean by a performance being a 'true rendering' of a piece of music, such that this doesn't fall back on either adherence to the objective score, or subjective preferences! Good Lord! Consider this the *third *request for such an explanation, after my posts 674 and 695. Heck, you might even _have_ a decent explanation, for all I know. But you sure as anything aren't being decent enough to give it.

(If I ploclaim there is such a thing as a unicorn, I think I would be under the very reasonable obligation to state what, on earth, I mean by 'unicorn' (horse-like creature but with a horn), such that my assertion can be considered by others!)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

You asked me before, and I responded. I don't like having to repeat myself.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Truth in this context is not something purely subjective nor is it following the precise instructions in the score, if that is even possible. Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it's about. You can perform precisely and accurately without achieving any of that.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I already did that at the very beginning of this discussion. It is tapping into that essence that connects us as humans. And sure I don't mean an entire crowd will respond positively with no exceptions. You know when the consensus is positive and when it is lukewarm.
> 
> Furtwängler's response from his audience and rapid ascent to the highest positions in Europe speaks for itself. He was tapping into something real which people responded to. And the response still carries remarkably to this day.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't how else to explain something which is second nature to me. The idea of taking a score and simply interpreting it the right way, or trying to at least. Are you a musician? I'm not the type to just lackadaisically say hey, let's just try it this way. I have strong opinions about how the music should go. And when the "right way" happens in performance, it is the most awesome thing. It happens when I hear a great recording. It is even better when you are in the performance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Heck, you might even _have_ a decent explanation, for all I know. But you sure as anything aren't being decent enough to give it.


I would think somewhere in the realm of how we define decency is included the idea that's it's not kosher to harass someone for "not answering" your question when the reality is that you simply don't like the answer. That can also be a cheap way to try to force agreement.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You asked me before, and I responded. I don't like having to repeat myself.


My dear man. My requests for an explanation of what you mean by the objective 'spirit' of a piece of music/musical 'truth' were each made AFTER the attempts you have repeated above. And why were they made after? Because each of your attempts appealed to *subjective preferences* - and so I subsequently asked you, three times, for an account of musical 'truth' that is more robust, given that subjective preferences are not compatible with truth/objectivity!



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it's about.


Subjective.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> tapping into that essence that connects us as humans


Subjective.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have strong opinions about how the music should go. And when the "right way" happens in performance, it is the most awesome thing. It happens when I hear a great recording


Subjective.

Consider this a *fourth* request.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> it's not kosher to harass someone for "not answering" your question when the reality is that you simply don't like the answer.


Harassment?! I'm not abusing you; I'm not making slanderous remarks about you; I'm not forcing you to reply.


----------



## BachIsBest

Who unveiled the essence of Beethoven's fifith more:
1. Me, humming the duh-duh-duh-duuuuh theme in the shower this morning
2. Furtwangler in his 1954 live account
3. Carlos Kleiber in the DG recording

If you put this to a poll, I'm sure you would get a lot of 2's and 3's but, shockingly enough, very few 1's (read: none). Perhaps it is just all subjective preference and one may think that, subjectively, I maybe revealed more of Beethoven's fifth in the shower this morning; or, perhaps, one may reasonably argue that Furtwangler and Kleiber delivered objectively better performances that revealed more of the music. In other words, preference between 2 and 3 is subjective, 1 is objectively worse; although such evaluations involve subjective judgements, this does not mean they are entirely awash in a sea of subjectivity.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> Who unveiled the essence of Beethoven's fifith more:
> 1. Me, humming the duh-duh-duh-duuuuh theme in the shower this morning
> 2. Furtwangler in his 1954 live account
> 3. Carlos Kleiber in the DG recording
> 
> If you put this to a poll, I'm sure you would get a lot of 2's and 3's but, shockingly enough, very few 1's (read: none). Perhaps it is just all subjective preference and one may think that, subjectively, I maybe revealed more of Beethoven's fifth in the shower this morning; or, perhaps, one may reasonably argue that Furtwangler and Kleiber delivered objectively better performances that revealed more of the music. In other words, preference between 2 and 3 is subjective, 1 is objectively worse; although such evaluations involve subjective judgements, this does not mean they are entirely awash in a sea of subjectivity.


1 is obviously not the winner, because of the score. But if you go back and read the discussion, you'll note adherence to score was rule out by Brahmsianhorn. He insists there is some real criterion of choosing 2 which a) doesn't appeal the score and which b) isn't completely subjective, yet when pressed to explain why the criterion isn't subjective, just uses subjective language.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is no such thing as a 100% "right" performance nor a 100% "wrong" performance.
> 
> I feel like we are at a point where your only interest is to try and "win" an argument by grossly simplifying your "opponent's" position. At that point it ceases being a meaningful discussion.
> 
> And that brings us to the salient point: *I am discussing, trying to get to truth. You are trying to win an argument and prove who is right and who is wrong. *That's not the point.
> 
> What is truth? No one knows, but everyone has the ability to seek it.
> 
> Who has authority over the truth? No one.


No you are trying to win and argument. You fool yourself by kidding yourself you are 'trying to get to the truth'. Everyone else sees it but you don't. Everyone else is telling you the same thing but you won't have it!


----------



## Barbebleu

BachIsBest said:


> Who unveiled the essence of Beethoven's fifith more:
> 1. Me, humming the duh-duh-duh-duuuuh theme in the shower this morning
> 2. Furtwangler in his 1954 live account
> 3. Carlos Kleiber in the DG recording
> 
> If you put this to a poll, I'm sure you would get a lot of 2's and 3's but, shockingly enough, very few 1's (read: none). Perhaps it is just all subjective preference and one may think that, subjectively, I maybe revealed more of Beethoven's fifth in the shower this morning; or, perhaps, one may reasonably argue that Furtwangler and Kleiber delivered objectively better performances that revealed more of the music. In other words, preference between 2 and 3 is subjective, 1 is objectively worse; although such evaluations involve subjective judgements, this does not mean they are entirely awash in a sea of subjectivity.


I would vote 1. And I have a perfectly valid reason. In your mind you are hearing the music exactly as you want it to sound without third party (i.e. conductor and orchestra) interference. What can beat that?


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> All you are doing by denying me a third option is simply restating your position that there is no such thing as a "true" rendering of the music. My position is that there is such thing as a true rendering, but we can never reach it, nor will we ever agree on it. We can keep going in circles on that forever.
> 
> I will also again state that objective reproduction of the score is an impossibility. The conductor cannot escape making a subjective judgment.
> 
> I will also again state that just because I think Furtwängler is truer to Schubert's 9th than Solti does not mean I am necessarily right. It's just the way I see it. Heck will likely see it the opposite way.


Just going to drop in this one post.

Let's assume for a moment that there indeed is an objective way to play a piece of music, any piece really. By objective I don't mean "being obvious from the printed notes" as you said, but that there is an universally correct way of playing it. You wrote that: "Truth is unveiling the essence of why a score is a great piece of music, why it moves us, what it's about."

How can one define "great"? Something I consider great could be absolutely terrible for someone else. Thus, you also assume that there is an objective greatness. You assume here that for example Beethoven's _Eroica_ moves every person but it doesn't, thus we cannot define the truth as something which reveals the reason why the music moves people, when it actually doesn't do it for everyone. Also, I think your definition would also mean that e.g. Beethoven's _Eroica_ is inherently moving. Meaning that no difference how it was played, it would be moving (even if played by a MIDI program) but the truly truthful interpretation would just reveal me _why_ it's moving. (Sorry, if it's partly pure semantics!) What is Beethoven's _Eroica_ objectively about? He didn't say what each single note means and conveys. I have no idea how such understanding should be gained. We cannot even understand what operas, which have written dialogue, are about!

You clearly really like Furtwängler and you like his interpretation the best. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! But meanwhile I think it's very important to see the greatness of other conductors, which I'm sure you see as I recall you also stated earlier. I think the "truth" you're talking about is not objective but still dependent on individual listener. What I think we often mean by "truthful" is an interpretation which matches with our own interpretation of the piece. For sure there is a meaning for every piece, a reason why the composer wrote it and what he wanted to say through it. This is what we can seek but even in that case, I cannot say that someone else's interpretation is wrong .


----------



## Enthusiast

Apparently, he started turning in it during a thread on TC.


----------



## JAS

^^^ a new source of renewable energy.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> The fact that some philosophers have spent large portions of their careers examining the definition of truth should probably tell you that it is not so cut and dry. It is good to agree on definitions in a debate (of course) but I don't think there is one widely accepted definition of truth; although, there certainly is a widely accepted intuitive notion of truth but precisely defining the intuitive often leads to complications as in this case.
> 
> Furthermore, the idea of truth as a relation between representations of phenomenological reality, and phenomenological reality itself (which, you can correct me if I'm wrong in evaluating your viewpoint) has the problem of rendering things outside the domain of truth which should, I think most people would agree, be within. Certainly, logic must be discounted as being true since, being entirely abstract, it is not a representation of anything; it follows that mathematics is also outside of truth. The statement 2+2=4 follows from the definitions of 2 and 4 and certainly can't be true in an innate sense using the representation theory of truth.
> 
> Anyways, although this is dangerously off-topic, my final point is the idea of music containing inherent truth is not ridiculous from the standpoint of an intuitive notion of truth, the representation theory of truth is not flawless, and, ultimately, I don't see why this could be used as an argument against Brahsianhorn's ideas without some sort of further development.


I was talking about representations, yes, but this is different from _the representational theory of truth_. The question 'what is a representation?' is a different question to what makes a representation true or false. You can have a non-representational theory of truth, but you are still committed to the idea that only representations are possibly true or false (more technically: it is propositions that are true or false, not exactly representations (because different representations can express the same proposition - for example 'snow is white' and a sentence (read: 'representation') in german expressing the same proposition), but that level of detail is irrelevant here).

What is important here is simply the following

1. Only representations (sentences, pictures, maps, formulas, etc.) are capable of being true or false. 
2. Music is not representational (of course, the printed score is, but here we're talking about the music not the printed notes!)
3. Hence music is not a candidate, in the first place, for being 'true' or 'false'.

------------
[I did touch up what 'truth' is, but that was at a level of finesse dwarfed by philosophical debate about what truth is. I was simply stating the absolute truism(!) that truth is an objective affair, not a subjective affair, and offered the following dictionary definition as proof:

-that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

I am not expert here, but I admit this sounds like a representational/correspondence theory of truth. However, I'm not wedded to such a theory. What I *am* wedded to is that truth is not simply a subjective affair. I'm not even sure it is meaningful to say that truth is not objective. Because aren't you trying to state an objective truth by _saying_ truth is not objective?!


----------



## DaddyGeorge

For example, truth can be defined as a perfect model of reality. However, it can be perfect, ie 100% true, only in theory. Our ability to describe reality has limitations. Often we can't measure reality perfectly (we have imperfect senses) or we may be limited by the expressive ability of the language in which we represent knowledge. 
People need to make the right decisions for their survival, and they need to know the truth. However, it is often practically unavailable, which is why in real life we help ourselves with other tools that allow us to at least get closer to the truth:
1) Consensus - we will try to agree on the truth.
2) Most - the truth is what more people believe.
3) Authority - the truth is what the chief, judge, Bible, etc. said.
4) Scientific methods - the truth is what has been repeatedly confirmed by a well-designed experiment.
*All of these tools are abusive and don't necessarily lead to the truth*. Consensus can be reached by manipulation, authority can be corrupted, and the statement "A lie repeated a hundred times becomes true." Shows us that even with the majority opinion can be moved.

As far as Furtwangler is concerned, none of these tools can be generally agreed upon (number 4 is impracticable), so it is appropriate to admit that this "truth" of interpretation is (at best) relative and entirely subjective.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> This is what we can seek but even in that case, I cannot say that someone else's interpretation is wrong .


Which is exactly what I have been saying! My goodness, so many on here get so much glee out of misquoting me.

Go back and look where I said verbatim that truth is in the seeking, not in "being right" or "being wrong." Nobody ever finds truth, and nobody ever agrees on it. But the fact that we are always searching for it proves that it is not a simple a case of "doing whatever we feel like doing" which is the objectivist criticism of the so-called subjectivists. That is really the crux of what I am arguing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> My dear man. My requests for an explanation of what you mean by the objective 'spirit' of a piece of music/musical 'truth' were each made AFTER the attempts you have repeated above. And why were they made after? Because each of your attempts appealed to *subjective preferences* - and so I subsequently asked you, three times, for an account of musical 'truth' that is more robust, given that subjective preferences are not compatible with truth/objectivity!
> 
> Subjective.
> 
> Subjective.
> 
> Subjective.
> 
> Consider this a *fourth* request.
> 
> Harassment?! I'm not abusing you; I'm not making slanderous remarks about you; I'm not forcing you to reply.


You're trying to force me to agree with you. Yes, that is harassment to the extent you keep claiming that an answer you disagree with is not an answer.

I keep saying that truth is not something tangible. It can never be completely known. And we will always disagree about it as we continue to seek it. This entire conversation demonstrates exactly what I am talking about!

The musical score is tangible and finite. Every marking is clear, assuming the printer did his job. But does that make it "true" in the way we are discussing here? Is the person who slavishly adheres to the score seeking truth, simply because he is sticking to what is finite and tangible? Obviously, I say no. It is the person who seeks the truth behind the notes, who thinks beyond the markings on the page.

Your simplistic point is that because I am saying that truth is not something we can ever fully know or agree upon, therefore it cannot exist in the objective sense. Imagine that five people are looking at a tree from a far distance. They are asked to estimate the distance to the tree in yards. All of them give different answers. None of them can know which is correct, but we do know there does exist an actual correct distance to the tree. Based on their perceptions, each one is giving a different answer. That is how I am defining seeking truth in this context. There is an answer, but we can never know it, only seek it.

Musical truth can never be measured objectively. It is something we are always seeking, as this entire discussion demonstrates.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which is exactly what I have been saying! My goodness, so many on here get so much glee out of misquoting me.
> 
> Go back and look where I said verbatim that truth is in the seeking, not in "being right" or "being wrong." Nobody ever finds truth, and nobody ever agrees on it. But the fact that we are always searching for it proves that it is not a simply a case of "doing whatever we feel like doing" which is the objectivist criticism of the so-called subjectivists.


I didn't say that about the "truth" though, rather the meaning composer wanted to convey through the work - that's the thing we can seek but not the perfect rendition of the work. In my opinion at least.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My response to the objectivists:

"I know that I know nothing." -Socrates


----------



## premont

My answer to the subjectivists:

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilatus


----------



## JAS

^^^ a fine role model. At least he had clean hands (and didn't have to worry about getting the Coronavirus)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

JAS said:


> ^^^ a fine role model. At least he had clean hands (and didn't have to worry about getting the Coronavirus)


Actually, Pontius is a perfect example. In that statement, of course, he was responding to Jesus' statement that he bears witness to the truth.

Objectivists vs subjectivists is really a misnomer. The real crux of it is authoritarianism vs humanism. For Pontius, law is law. It is written by an authority and you do not question it. This is the Toscanini/Scalia doctrine in a nutshell.

Those of us on the other side believe that truth is not given from authority. It exists outside of any authority, and it is up to all of us collectively and as individuals to seek it out.

Again, being written down does not make something right. Being tangible does not make something right. It only makes something clear. For the simpler among us, they want things to be clear and obvious. But they will never discover truth that way.


----------



## JAS

Not to delve further into a political discussion, but I often think of something a friend once told me. In the end, you have exactly those rights that you can defend yourself, or someone else is willing and able to defend for you. No mere piece of paper, no matter how elegantly written, conveys you with any rights at all.


----------



## DavidA

premont said:


> My answer to the subjectivists:
> 
> "What is truth?" - Pontius Pilatus


The 'truth' Jesus was talking about to Pilate was neither objective nor subjective but absolute


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> What is important here is simply the following
> 
> 1. Only representations (sentences, pictures, maps, formulas, etc.) are capable of being true or false.
> 2. Music is not representational (of course, the printed score is, but here we're talking about the music not the printed notes!)
> 3. Hence music is not a candidate, in the first place, for being 'true' or 'false'.


I'm not sure I agree with your argument. I'm pretty positive that abstract mathematics, as practised by modern mathematicians, would be completely incapable of being true or false under your definition. I don't claim a monopoly on the definition of truth and have seen people argue against mathematics being true (largely because it doesn't fall into a definition somehow linked to the truth being correspondence with observed reality) but this completely flies in the face of intuitive notions of truth. 1+1=2 is the almost the prototypically true sentence.

I'm also not convinced that music can't be representational: did Vaughan Williams really 'represent' nothing of the English countryside; does Bach's St. Mathew Passion really 'represent' no aspect of grief?

In the end, I've come to accept that truth can apply to more abstract things for I see no other path that does not, when carried to its logical conclusion, obviously violate intuitive notions of truth and/or lead to post-modernist thinking where nothing is truly true.


----------



## larold

I just read the last page of this; it appears it is no longer about Furtwangler.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

larold said:


> I just read the last page of this; it appears it is no longer about Furtwangler.


How could it be any more about Furtwangler? We're talking about the philosophy of music of which he is seen as the embodiment. It would be just as appropriate to have a discussion on objectivism on the Toscanini thread.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your argument. I'm pretty positive that abstract mathematics, as practised by modern mathematicians, would be completely incapable of being true or false under your definition. I don't claim a monopoly on the definition of truth and have seen people argue against mathematics being true (largely because it doesn't fall into a definition somehow linked to the truth being correspondence with observed reality) but this completely flies in the face of intuitive notions of truth. 1+1=2 is the almost the prototypically true sentence.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that music can't be representational: did Vaughan Williams really 'represent' nothing of the English countryside; does Bach's St. Mathew Passion really 'represent' no aspect of grief?
> 
> In the end, I've come to accept that truth can apply to more abstract things for I see no other path that does not, when carried to its logical conclusion, obviously violate intuitive notions of truth and/or lead to post-modernist thinking where nothing is truly true.


The logical extension of his argument is that every performance of a musical work is equally valid. No one on this forum agrees with that.


----------



## JAS

^^^ if by equally valid one means possessing of equal merit.


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> The 'truth' Jesus was talking about to Pilate was neither objective nor subjective but absolute


It's absolute only for a believer. For a non-believer (e.g. Pilatus) it becomes subjective.


----------



## DavidA

premont said:


> It's absolute only for a believer. For a non-believer (e.g. Pilatus) it becomes subjective.


I'm talking about what Jesus meant by 'truth'. Of course we get Pilate's cynical response: "What is truth?"


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How could it be any more about Furtwangler? *We're talking about the philosophy of music of which he is seen as the embodiment*. It would be just as appropriate to have a discussion on objectivism on the Toscanini thread.


By you. Please do not include everyone in your statement. Toscanini also had a philosophy of music as did every great conductor. You can actually say that Toscanini's philosophy caused him to take a stronger stand against Fascism than Furtwangler did.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I'm talking about what Jesus meant. Of course we get Pilate's cynical response: "What is truth?"


I've always thought it more a bewildered response. He doesn't understand anything beyond the material and tangible.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> By you. Please do not include everyone in your statement.


It's not by me. The Furtwangler vs Toscanini, Subjectivist vs Objectivist debate has been going on for nearly a century.


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> I'm talking about what Jesus meant. Of course we get Pilate's cynical response: "What is truth?"


I quoted Pilatus to focus upon the concept "truth" from his (subjective) point of view.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not by me. The Furtwangler vs Toscanini, Subjectivist vs Objectivist debate has been going on for nearly a century.


It's a totally different thing from saying that Toscanini didn't have a philosophy


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've always thought it more a bewildered response. He doesn't understand anything beyond the material and tangible.


From Pilate's reputation as a Roman thug it was probably cynicism


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> By you. Please do not include everyone in your statement. *Toscanini also had a philosophy of music as did every great conductor.* You can actually say that Toscanini's philosophy caused him to take a stronger stand against Fascism than Furtwangler did.


Oh now you go and conveniently change your post to claim I said something I never said. Good grief. Even by your standards this is ridiculous. Clearly I was referring to the specific philosophy of music attributed to Furtwangler, not all music philosophy. C'mon, man.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh now you go and conveniently change your post to claim I said something I never said. Good grief. Even by your standards this is ridiculous. Clearly I was referring to the specific philosophy of music attributed to Furtwangler, not all music philosophy. C'mon, man.


Quite clearly you didn't say that. Just read your post. You have a major problem with communication.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Wow. We've got wrapped up in philosophy to a quite knotty extent. Odd, when we're started with the fascination with a particular conductor.

Anyway, some points:
- As was mentioned earlier truth is a property of propositions, within a logical system of reasoning. As those familiar with figures like Godel will be aware this is a tricky area, even in the narrow context of mathematics. If someone wants to launch into incompleteness theorems then I'd love it, but I don't think it has much to do with musical interpretations. Technically you would want a truth function to apply to formal propositions, and what that might mean in the context of music escapes me.
- Reality may be more or less objective or subjective - but that has little to do with logical truth. I'm a bit of a Kantian in epistemological matters. I do believe in the existence of an objective noumenological world, but accept that we have only a subjective phenomenological access to that. I also therefore have some sympathy with later thinkers who are more sceptical about objective reality, but believe that that line of argument has been hijacked in many ways, often for political purposes.
- The question of communication of meaning is another thing again, and perhaps we're into linguistics, which is not a field I have explored much.
Coming back to musical performance, this is all clearly (and I mean clearly in an objective sense :tiphat nonsense. We prefer performance A or performance B, and that is the end of it. I do buy the argument that weight of opinion matters, and particularly opinion which is itself weighted by some idea of expertise in the field. So if I like performance X, but most informed people don't then I should consider that. But if many informed people like X and many informed people like Y then that is fine. I'm not going to attempt to define what informed might mean.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Quite clearly you didn't say that. Just read your post. You have a major problem with communication.


I said THE philosophy of music of which he is seen as the embodiment. I did not say ALL philosophy. Sometimes you really go far with this ridiculous behavior. Just admit you were wrong!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Coming back to musical performance, this is all clearly (and I mean clearly in an objective sense :tiphat nonsense. We prefer performance A or performance B, and that is the end of it.


It is not the end of it, or we wouldn't be endless discussing it. Very few of us are truly musical relativists. Merl talks like one, but I don't buy that either.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is not the end of it, or we wouldn't be endless discussing it. Very few of us are truly musical relativists. Merl talks like one, but I don't buy that either.


Well, I am perhaps more of a musical populist. As I said, if lots of people thing something then I should take that seriously. At risk of seeming too populist, as that is unfashionable among the intelligentsia, I qualified that with reference to people who were "informed". However, if I'm more honest (perish the thought), I'm a more thorough-going populist than that. If lots of people like something, then it has some merit. Regardless of that, I reserve the right to disagree with them (because I am sufficiently arrogant for that).

However, being arrogant again, the one thing I am sure about is that the idea of an objectively true rendering is arrant nonsense.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Well, I am perhaps more of a musical populist. As I said, if lots of people thing something then I should take that seriously. At risk of seeming too populist, as that is unfashionable among the intelligentsia, I qualified that with reference to people who were "informed". However, if I'm more honest (perish the thought), I'm a more thorough-going populist than that. If lots of people like something, then it has some merit. Regardless of that, I reserve the right to disagree with them (because I am sufficiently arrogant for that).


I'm right with you on the populism thing. One of the things I detest about musical "correctness" is how it often disassociates from what people actually like and respond to. Why else are we making music?



Eclectic Al said:


> However, being arrogant again, the one thing I am sure about is that the idea of an objectively true rendering is arrant nonsense.


But the pursuit of that ideal is not nonsense. That is my point. Again, again, again, I say there is no such thing as perfection. it is merely an ideal to which we all aspire.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There we go Roger Waters, here is a way to phrase it:

1. The score as an objectively true document

vs

2. Everyone's subjective preference

vs

3. An ideal of perfection to which we all aspire


No. 3 is the accurate description of truth in music.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There we go Roger Waters, here is a way to phrase it:
> 
> 1. The score as an objectively true document
> 
> vs
> 
> 2. Everyone's subjective preference
> 
> vs
> 
> 3. An ideal of perfection to which we all aspire
> 
> No. 3 is the accurate description of truth in music.


Formidable!

If 'an ideal of perfection to which we all aspire' was 'truth in music', then truth would be, you guessed it!:

- Relative to individuals' arbitrary ideas of 'perfection'

This would, in turn, mean that truth is not objective. This is an absurd conclusion.

Moral: You are using 'truth' the way a blind man uses sunglasses - non-standardly; idiosyncratically.

If you want to do what amounts to using cooperative tools (words) for your own grubby personal gain, that is your choice, but you shouldn't expect people to respect you for it. I'm relatively new to being a more regular poster here, and so I wouldn't expect you to care what I think of you, but others who you know better must surely be cringing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> If you want to do what amounts to using cooperative tools (words) for your own grubby personal gain, that is your choice, but you shouldn't expect people to respect you for it. I'm relatively new to being a more regular poster here, and so I wouldn't expect you to care what I think of you, but others who you know better must surely be cringing.


Um.........okay


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'm sure I'm going to hate myself for asking this, but what exactly is my personal gain supposed to be out of this?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm right with you on the populism thing. One of the things I detest about musical "correctness" is how it often disassociates from what people actually like and respond to. Why else are we making music?
> 
> But the pursuit of that ideal is not nonsense. That is my point. Again, again, again, I say there is no such thing as perfection. it is merely an ideal to which we all aspire.


I don't have a problem with pursuing an ideal. What I do have a problem with is the claim that one's own ideal is objectively true. 
At the root of it, I think that's my only fundamental problem with everything you have said in this long thread.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There we go Roger Waters, here is a way to phrase it:
> 
> 1. The score as an objectively true document
> 
> vs
> 
> 2. Everyone's subjective preference
> 
> vs
> 
> 3. An ideal of perfection to which we all aspire
> 
> No. 3 is the accurate description of truth in music.


I don't have a problem with 3 as such. It's just that I don't think we necessarily have to agree about the particular ideal. That is - it is not objective.

I also don't see that using the word "truth" helps. I think it just confuses. If you stick the the concept of an ideal, and avoid equating it to truth, than one of my problems with what you say goes away. If you accept that your ideal may not be the same as someone else's ideal then I think we're pretty well in agreement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't have a problem with pursuing an ideal. What I do have a problem with is the claim that one's own ideal is objectively true.
> At the root of it, I think that's my only fundamental problem with everything you have said in this long thread.


I've never said that


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've never said that


Then why are you calling the pursuit of your arbitrary musical ideal the pursuit of *truth*? Truth is objective. What is true for one person is automatically true for every single other person. Truth is not relative to individuals. If the representation '2+2=4' is true for one person, it's true for every person. If the representation 'God doesn't exist' is true for one person, it's true for every person, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

RogerWaters said:


> Then why are you calling the pursuit of your arbitrary musical ideal the pursuit of *truth*? Truth is objective. *What is true for one person is automatically true for every single other person. Truth is not relative to individuals.*


I disagree with that.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm sure I'm going to hate myself for asking this, but what exactly is my personal gain supposed to be out of this?


Winning an argument, obviously. You were challenged on your use of the concept of truth early on, but you insist on hanging on to it, despite nearly everyone in this thread showing you why you are wrong to use this concept to talk about what you strive for in your listening habits.


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with that.


That's fine. It just means you are wrong.

As an illustration, try to tell me that truth is relative to individuals (hence non-objective), without offering an objective truth (that truth is relative to individuals)!

The rub: you cannot escape truth being objective, because the very act of saying it isn't commits you to the underlying assumption that it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

RogerWaters said:


> If you want to do what amounts to using cooperative tools (words) for your own grubby personal gain, that is your choice, but you shouldn't expect people to respect you for it. I'm relatively new to being a more regular poster here, and so I wouldn't expect you to care what I think of you, but others who you know better must surely be cringing.


This is too ad-hominem.

Are you British, or educated in Britain?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Then why are you calling the pursuit of your arbitrary musical ideal the pursuit of *truth*? Truth is objective. What is true for one person is automatically true for every single other person. Truth is not relative to individuals. If the representation '2+2=4' is true for one person, it's true for every person. If the representation 'God doesn't exist' is true for one person, it's true for every person, etc.


I'll explain it one more time. Imagine there is a tree far away and all of us are asked to estimate the distance. All of us have different ideas, and none of us can prove ourselves empirically correct. But there is a true distance that we are all STRIVING to approximate.

You never reach the truth in music. You strive for it. How many more times do I to have to explain this only to hear you distort it?


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll explain it one more time...You never reach the truth. You strive for it. How many more times do I to have to explain this only to hear you distort it?


This is too ad hominem as well.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll explain it one more time. Imagine there is a tree far away and all of us are asked to estimate the distance. All of us have different ideas, and none of us can prove ourselves empirically correct. But there is a true distance that we are all STRIVING to approximate.
> 
> You never reach the truth in music. You strive for it. How many more times do I to have to explain this only to hear you distort it?


Your analogy works against you.

The tree exists - hence it is not unreasonable to say you are, actually, striving for it (as opposed to merely thinking you are striving for it).

Musical 'perfection' is not a thing which exists - hence it _is_ unreasonable to say you are, actually, striving for this (as opposed to merely thinking you are striving for it)!


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> Are you British, or educated in Britain?


This is ad-hominem


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> Who unveiled the essence of Beethoven's fifith more:
> 1. Me, humming the duh-duh-duh-duuuuh theme in the shower this morning
> 2. Furtwangler in his 1954 live account
> 3. Carlos Kleiber in the DG recording


4.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Musical 'perfection' is not a thing which exists - hence it _is_ unreasonable to say you actually are striving for it (as opposed to merely thinking you are striving for it)!


I believe musical perfection can never be fully realized. But it exists. How can you strive for something that doesn't exist?


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Indeed, the _preferences_ of the people who happened to respond to him.
> But you seem to want to say *Fartwangler* was tapping into something more meaty/objective that mere preferences. Like the following...
> This is so vague as to be virtually meaningless. And what of the people whose neurons are not so titilated by *Fartwangler*'s batton? Do they lack 'the essence that connects us as humans'?! What baloney!


*fart* _noun_
2. a boring or contemptible person.
_"he was such an old fart"_

A *wangler* is one who resorts to trickery or devious methods to obtain their goals. One might find himself classified as a wangler if they were to manipulate information to obtain a job.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How can you strive for something that doesn't exist? .


I completely agree! I mean, you can _think_ you are striving for something, when that thing doesn't happen to exist. But you aren't really. You're striving for a mirage.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I believe musical perfection...exists.


Please give us reasons why you are not striving for a mirage? Why should we all think musical perfection exists? What makes the claim that musical perfection exists true? This claim can't be true just because you _say _it is or _feel strongly_ that it is (and please keep in mind that existence is objective; if musical perfection exists, it necessarily exists for everyone).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Why should we all think that murder is immoral?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why should we all think that murder is immoral?


Let's not get into morals or religion, please. I'm wondering about music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Let's not get into morals or religion, please. I'm wondering about music.


But all your same arguments against my thesis apply. That's the point. You can use the same arguments against anything non-tangible.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But all your same arguments against my thesis apply. That's the point. You can use the same arguments against anything non-tangible.


There are perfectly reasonable pragmatic arguments for disqualifying murder from the list of actions citizens may perform unhindered by the law - it makes society a more desireable place to live for most. No appeal to mysterious substances or properties.

Now please, back to the issue... why should we all believe musical 'perfection' exists?

Sigh. It would be so much easier if you just admitted:

1. Furtwangler is your favourite conductor
2. This is simply because Furtwangler happens to play a score in a way you (and other F fans) prefer, and not because there is some objective fact/thing/essence Furtwangler is tapping into more than other conductors.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Sigh. It would be so much easier if you just admitted:
> 
> 1. Furtwangler is your favourite conductor
> 2. This is simply because Furtwangler happens to play a score in a way you (and other F fans) prefer.


That's old news. That's not what this is about. The debate is whether there is such a thing as an objective way vs a subjective way to perform music. My thesis is that it is all subjective in search of the objective.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's old news.


So you endorse 1 and 2 now?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The debate is whether there is such a thing as an objective way vs a subjective way to perform music. My thesis is that it is all subjective in search of the objective.


Ok, but you have yet to provide any good reasons for the existence of this 'objective', when it comes to music (such that this 'objective' is not the score!).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> So you endorse 1 and 2 now?
> Ok, but you have yet to provide any good reasons for the existence of this 'objective', when it comes to music.


My preference for Furtwängler is based on my subjective belief that he comes the closest to reaching the objective truth.

But I'd rather restrict that to individual recordings as I'm not saying Furtwängler nailed it all the time. Just more often than any other conductor I know.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My preference for Furtwängler is based on my subjective belief that he comes the closest to reaching the objective truth.


You have a 'subjective' belief (all beliefs are subjective, in the sense they are mental states of individual subjects, so this isn't news) that there is objective truth in music. You are just re-stating your claim without justifying it. Again, why is there objective truth, when it comes to music?

You are still claiming that you prefer Furtwangler because he gets closest to the objective truth of music he conducts. This, logically, implies that non F fans enjoy music that is further from the objective truth and therefore lacking in some objective respect. In short, your position is still rather self-righteous.

Without a proper justification of a) why there is objective truth in music (beyond the score) and also b) why F is closer to this objective truth, your position is (respectfully) both somewhat pompous _and_ rationally indefensible. A curiously obtuse mix!


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> millionrainbows said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you British, or educated in Britain?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ad-hominem
Click to expand...

It's not racist enough to be ad-hominem


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> You are still claiming that you prefer Furtwangler because he gets closest to the objective truth of music he conducts. This, logically, implies that non F fans enjoy music that is further from the objective truth and therefore lacking in some objective respect. In short, your position is still rather self-righteous.


There is nothing in anything I said which implies that my opinion is superior to anyone else's


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is nothing in anything I said which implies that my opinion is superior to anyone else's


No but there is. As I (and may others, in their own way) noted above:



RogerWaters said:


> You are still claiming that you prefer Furtwangler because he gets closest to the objective truth of music he conducts. This, logically, implies that non F fans enjoy music that is further from the objective truth and therefore lacking in some objective respect.


Mr Speaker, I would like the draw the member from Furtwangler's attention to the above. How the member cannot not see that is position has implications for others' tastes is hard to fathiom, Mr Speaker.


----------



## Red Terror

RogerWaters said:


> No but there is. As I noted above:


WTF is Roger Waters doing here? Shouldn't you be sandblasting høøk*rs and drinking the blood of virgins? You know, for health reasons.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> No but there is. As I (and may others, in their own way) noted above:


That's merely my opinion. Maybe I'm a total idiot.

I would say however that you are being self-righteous to critique me as a person.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's merely my opinion. Maybe I'm a total idiot.
> 
> I would say however that you are being self-righteous to critique me as a person.


Whose critiquing you as a person? I'm responding to your written words, each time you respond to mine. You're the one wondering in print whether you're a total idiot, not me!

Of course it's 'just your opinion'. That doesn't get you off the hook, beause your opinion logically implies you know what 'objective truth' is in music while others don't. How else are we to interpret your claim that Furtwangler is closer to the objective truth of a piece of music than conductors other people favour?

Putting 'it's just my opinion' in front of 'that 2+2=4 is an objective truth' is no different from simply claiming '2+2=4'! Imagine thinking 'it's just my opinion', placed before, 'that being gay is objectively abominable' does any good!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Of course it's 'just your opinion'. That doesn't get you off the hook, beause your opinion logically implies you know what 'objective truth' is in music while others don't.


No, that does not logically imply what you say it does. Every other single person on this earth could be equally or better able to know what musical truth is. There is nothing in my statements which preclude that. Only if I said I know for a fact that Furtwängler is a superior conductor could you make this assertion.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, that does not logically imply what you say it does. Every other single person on this earth could be equally or better able to know what musical truth is. There is nothing in my statements which preclude that. Only if I said I know for a fact that Furtwängler is a superior conductor could you make this assertion.


Now I'm not sure I'm even making sense of your position.

Aren't you claiming the following?

- Objective truth in music exists (but is never fully obtainable)
- Furtwangler is closer to attaining musical truth than other composers (and this is why you like him)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

In my opinion. 

And at this point I’m tired of repeating myself.


----------



## RogerWaters

So am I.

AGAIN. Putting "in my opinion" in front of "Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven are more true than Karajan's" still means you think "Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven are more true than Karajan's"!

Yet:

1. You have given us absolutely zero in the way of an account of musical truth than isn't _subjective_, and hence not 'truth', at all!
2. Truth, being something OBJECTIVE, applies to everyone. Thus, the logical implication of what you write (even if this is not what you _mean_) is that others are MISTAKEN if they don't like Furtwangler's interpretations of Beethoven.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> So am I.
> 
> AGAIN. Putting "in my opinion" in front of "Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven are more true than Karajan's" still means you think "Furtwangler's performances of Beethoven are more true than Karajan's"!
> 
> Yet:
> 
> 1. You have given us absolutely zero in the way of an account of musical truth than isn't _subjective_, and hence not 'truth', at all!
> 2. Truth, being something OBJECTIVE, applies to everyone. Thus, the logical implication of what you write (even if this is not what you _mean_) is that others are MISTAKEN if they don't like Furtwangler's interpretations of Beethoven.


You've completely sabotaged this discussion. The point was not whether one's preference for one conductor over another was based on opinion or fact. The point was whether there is such thing as objective vs subjective interpretation of music.

Both Furtwängler and Karajan did great things in Beethoven. I happen to prefer Furtwängler. That is completely aside from the discussion over how to interpret music.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You've completely sabotaged this discussion. The point was not whether one's preference for one conductor over another was based on opinion or fact. The point was whether there is such thing as objective vs subjective interpretation of music.


And my last post was directly concerned with whether there is such a thing as objective vs subjective interpretation in music. Let me re-write the relevant bits for you to respond to, in a way which doesn't touch upon conductor preference (edits in bold, to meet your strange requirements):

1. You have given us absolutely zero in the way of an account of musical truth than isn't subjective, and hence not 'truth', at all! (see: this post)
2. Truth, being something OBJECTIVE, applies to everyone. Thus, the logical implication of what you write (even if this is not what you mean) is that others are MISTAKEN if they don't *agree with your judgement that performance X is more 'true' than performance Y*.

:tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> And my last post was directly concerned with whether there is such a thing as objective vs subjective interpretation in music. Let me re-write the relevant bits for you to respond to, in a way which doesn't touch upon conductor preference (edits in bold, to meet your strange requirements):
> 
> 1. You have given us absolutely zero in the way of an account of musical truth than isn't subjective, and hence not 'truth', at all! (see: this post)
> 2. Truth, being something OBJECTIVE, applies to everyone. Thus, the logical implication of what you write (even if this is not what you mean) is that others are MISTAKEN if they don't *agree with your judgement that performance X is more 'true' than performance Y*.
> 
> :tiphat:


If I think the tree is 300 yards away, and someone else thinks it is 400 yards away, who's to say the other person isn't closer to the truth than me?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If I think the tree is 300 yards away, and someone else thinks it is 400 yards away, who's to say the other person isn't closer to the truth than me?


I'm out. This is too wierd.

I wish I could say it was a pleasure.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> I'm out. This is too wierd.
> 
> I wish I could say it was a pleasure.


Your criticism was not justified. I never said my version of the truth is superior to others. That's the point of my above post.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your criticism was not justified. I never said my version of the truth is superior to others. That's the point of my above post.


You are coming across extremely strange, to me at least. Obviously a measuring tape would settle whose version of the truth is superior, when it comes to your tree distance example. (And obviously this is possible because the tree, unlike 'musical perfection', actually exists).


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said THE philosophy of music of which he is seen as the embodiment. I did not say ALL philosophy. Sometimes you really go far with this ridiculous behavior. Just admit you were wrong!


Sorry it's not my ridiculous behaviour it's your ridiculous way of putting things. Just admit you were wrong in the way you put it and you communicated badly. The way you get peoples goes on this forum is because she will not admit any fault lies with you. Just read your post you're full of self justification all the way down. It's not me who's just remarking on it is everybody else. So it's either everybody else is wrong or you are not putting things properly


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My *preference for Furtwängler is based on my subjective belief that he comes the closest to reaching the objective truth.
> *
> But I'd rather restrict that to individual recordings as I'm not saying Furtwängler nailed it all the time. Just more often than any other conductor I know.


You do realise that is the total self contradiction


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with that.


You are entitled to disagree with that.

However, earlier on in this thread the statement was attributed to Furtwangler (and it appears to be supported by Brahmsianhorn) that there exists an "objectively true rendering" of a piece of music. It is this statement that I (and I think RogerWaters) have a problem with.

From what you say, I believe you would also disagree with the proposition that an "objectively true rendering" exists, because you seem to disagree with the proposition that truth is objective in the first place.

(It's not relevant, but my own position is that in some contexts we use the word truth in a way which requires it to be treated as objective within that context - for example, internally within a system of mathematical logic. In other contexts, for example in our perceptions concerning a piece of music, it is difficult to support the proposition that there is any objective truth. Indeed, as I think RogerWaters and I both believe, it is unhelpful to introduce the word "truth" into this context at all. What does a rendering being "true" even mean? I suspect it is just a sloppy way of saying that someone has an ideal performance in mind as a goal in performance, but the peculiar thing is the reluctance to drop the word "true". It is perhaps less odd to find a reluctance to drop the claim that one's own ideal performance is objectively ideal, because it is probably comforting to believe that your own ideal is objectively the best. I think this thread has revealed the existence of Platonists on TC.)


----------



## 20centrfuge

I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of the fascination with Furtwangler stems from his animal magnetism and overt sexuality.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your criticism was not justified. I never said my version of the truth is superior to others. That's the point of my above post.


In all the arguments you're making you seem to be saying your version of the truth is superior to others


----------



## vincula

20centrfuge said:


> View attachment 138986
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of the fascination with Furtwangler stems from his animal magnetism and overt sexuality.


Some tribes do workship people with really long necks. Ya' nevah know theez dais, matey:lol:

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *And in my view Furtwangler was more true to the spirit of the score than Solti.* My first exposure to this was when I purchased Furtwangler's Schubert 9th in the mid-90s after having already owned the Solti. I ended up selling off the Solti. Furtwangler's version sounded idiomatic, true to the spirit. *Solti's seemed clinical and lifeless.* I would argue that it is the rigid timebeaters who are being self-indulgent in showing off how precise and accurate they can be at the expense of the music's spirit.
> 
> So there.


Let's take this one for example. How do you know that Solti wasn't closer to the truth? Maybe Solti understood Schubert better - maybe Schubert _was_ clinical and lifeless, maybe that _is_ the truth? (Not that I actually think he was but I think you see the point I'm trying to make) Truth isn't what sounds the best, truth is always truth whether we like it or not. Thus, if we insist upon having the truth we have accept the possibility that we don't like it.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Let's take this one for example. How do you know that Solti wasn't closer to the truth? Maybe Solti understood Schubert better - maybe Schubert _was_ clinical and lifeless, maybe that _is_ the truth? (Not that I actually think he was but I think you see the point I'm trying to make) Truth isn't what sounds the best, truth is always truth whether we like it or not. Thus, if we insist upon having the truth we have accept the possibility that we don't like it.


Interesting that Solti's performance of Schuberts ninth has been very highly regarded by many. Just shows how subjective all this so the thing is.


----------



## Eclectic Al

We seem to have (1) a claim that an objectively true rendering exists, (2) a wish to strive for it in performance, (3) an acknowledgement that we don't know exactly what it is and (4) a recognition that we are in reality striving for our own version of the objectively true rendering.

The question I would ask is: what does statement (1) add to the situation.

Suppose we take (1) away, and replace it with: (1A) I have a subjectively ideal performance in mind. Then (2) still works. To be honest (3) still works as it is hard to believe we can have an absolutely complete knowledge even of our own ideal. (4) goes away, but it fairly obviously becomes (4A) a recognition that we are in reality striving for our own subjective ideal because we can't know it in full.

If you follow (1), (2), (3) and (4) or (1A), (2), (3) and (4A). You have the same practical outcome: an attempt to perform a piece of music in a way which is as close as possible to our personal (subjective) understanding of an ideal performance. Adding in the hypothesis of an objectively true rendering has no practical consequence.

What it does do, as DavidA alludes to, is add a certain sense of superiority to our claims, and that can lead to resentment among those with a different sense of what would be ideal.

With (1A), (2), (3) and (4A) there is no claim being made for superiority of one's own preference.
With (1), (2), (3) and (4) you have two possibilities (X) you accept that you have no privileged access to the objective truth or (Y) you claim you do have a degree of privileged access to the objective truth.

If you go for (X) then the hypothesis of an objectively true performance is pointless, because no one has any better idea of it than anyone else. It makes no difference.
If you go for (Y) then you are making a claim for superiority and that is (so to say) rude.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Interesting that Solti's performance of Schuberts ninth has been very highly regarded by many. Just shows how subjective all this so the thing is.


I feel many are not overly fond of Solti because he seems to have a bit too much life in his conducting (his _Ring_ for example). I generally like a lot of Solti's conducting. Should listen to his Schubert 9th then!


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> I feel many are not overly fond of Solti because he seems to have a bit too much life in his conducting (his _Ring_ for example). I generally like a lot of Solti's conducting. Should listen to his Schubert 9th then!


I always liked that performance - but then it was the first I bought.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> I'm talking about what Jesus meant by 'truth'. Of course we get Pilate's cynical response: "What is truth?"


Wasn't that Socrates?


----------



## Enthusiast

20centrfuge said:


> View attachment 138986
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of the fascination with Furtwangler stems from his animal magnetism and overt sexuality.


Doesn't _that _come down to taste?


----------



## premont

The obstacle in this discussion is (as many pointed out) Bramsianhorn’s self-constructed concept ”truth in music”. What “truth” may there be in music other than the composers idea of it in the widest sense. But as we know, composers ideas of their own music change with time. Think of the many revisions Bach e.g. made in his own music, and think of the fact that composers own performances (as witnessed by recordings) often don’t respect their prescriptions in the score. So there is no objective truth in music, and even from the perspective of the composer the “truth” is entirely subjective. So talk about truth in music should be avoided, because it tends to be unhelpful in clearing up the discussion.


----------



## millionrainbows

20centrfuge said:


> View attachment 138986
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that a lot of the fascination with Furtwangler stems from his animal magnetism and overt sexuality.


I disagree. fifteen


----------



## mikeh375

If there was an objective truth to music, then what does this mean for how it's created in the first place?

Any competent composer will tell you that it is a messy business, full of wrong turns and unexpected moments. There are also moments that change the course of a work, some serendipitous, others calculated. There are as many ways to write music as there are to play it and every single note, phrase, cadence and form placed upon the manuscript is subjective. Even when the music itself starts to suggest ways forward, as it often does, these suggestions and the future decisions taken are still subjective, or even practical, but based on the composers aesthetic proclivities, experience and skill.

No care or thought is given to anything objective beyond the required practical application to achieve the work and to make it coherent, logical, inevitable. There is no objective truth to be glimpsed anywhere. The closest one might get to a 'truth' might be an intuition or a sudden realising of a way forward during composition, but again this can be explained by other factors.

All of this suggests to me at least that there is no Platonic archetype or objective truth here unless you want to believe there is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Nothing anyone is saying contradicts what I am saying.

1. Slavishly following the score does not result in an objectively true performance, because we cannot avoid subjective decisions, and the score cannot by itself tell the whole story lest we substitute computer renderings for human performance.

2. Neither is performance a result of haphazard whim. We are not simply doing whatever we feel like doing as performers. We are striving for an ideal. And we cannot avoid using our subjective minds to get us there. Even those strictly following the score in their minds are doing so out of a subjective belief that this is the best way towards the ideal.

3. Hence the whole idea of objectivism vs subjectivism is a fallacy. We are all subjectively striving for an objective ideal, one which can never be fully observed or realized. No one has a special authority or monopoly over what this ideal represents, only our own individual theory.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nothing anyone is saying contradicts what I am saying.


I disagree with that. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...Hence the whole idea of objectivism vs subjectivism is a fallacy.


I disagree. Toscannini has been described as trying to be totally objective, and following the score, and leaving his own personal whims out of it, because he had great reverence for the composer and the score as "gospel".

Furtwangler, on the other hand, felt no restrictions on deviating from the score to fit what he thought the music needed.

You may have philosophically figured out a way to say "objectivism vs subjectivism is a fallacy," but this is not relevant to the way these conductors are seen. The consensus knows very well what's "objective" and what's not.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

And so applying this to music discussions:

When Knorf says that Furtwängler goes too far in stretching the tempo in the Eroica, and that he makes dramatic points too obvious, that is a completely fair statement. Knorf is simply saying that Furtwängler’s version of the ideal does not match his own.

By contrast, when someone says that my guy Toscanini did things the right way because he was faithful to the score, and Furtwängler did things the wrong way because he made subjective decisions, that’s a load of crap. No one has authority over the truth, and no one who makes subjective decisions is inherently wrong, because we cannot avoid subjectively determining the best way to interpret a piece of music in the first place. 

We are all subjectivists in search of the objective.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree. Toscannini has been described as trying to be totally objective, and following the score, and leaving his own personal whims out of it, because he had great reverence for the composer and the score as "gospel". . . .


I don't know if it applies to Toscannini, but I note only that many people who are indeed following their own person whims do not admit to doing so, and some are not even aware that they are doing so. Even verbal indications in a score require some interpretation.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We are all subjectivists in search of the objective.


That should maybe be rephrased... If we were all subjectivist, we would have to limit ourselves only to subjective experience and thus I cannot see how we could be looking for the objective whose existence subjectivism denies or disregards. To my understanding at least.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We are all subjectively striving for an objective ideal, one which can never be fully observed or realized.


You mix subjectivity and objectivity in a most pointless way. And how do you know btw that your objective ideal exists at all, if no one has observed it or realized it?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> You mix subjectivity and objectivity in a most pointless way. And how do you know btw that your objective ideal exists at all, if no one has observed it or realized it?


If you are striving for something, by definition it exists as a "something"


----------



## Guest

This is still going on?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...
> 
> For me spirit of the music comes first. I want to know why I am performing a work and what I am trying to convey. Everything single consideration stems from that. *The truth within the music.* The connection. I gravitate to conductors who value those qualities above all else - Furtwangler, Barbirolli, Horenstein. Conductors who have obviously thought deeply about a work, what it means, and how to convey that meaning. I am bored by conductors who generically prioritize technique and execution, as if the music simply speaks for itself - Toscanini, Reiner, Szell, Solti. Conductors who see perfect execution as an end in itself and dismiss others as "sloppy" if they don't prioritize the same thing.
> 
> I don't see music as a vehicle for impressing people. I see music as a means towards connection and truth.


(my emphasis)

For all your protests that you have been horribly misquoted, etc, here you attribute the search for "truth" to your favorite conductors and dismiss four of the greatest conductors of the 20th century as cads who consider music to be "a vehicle for impressing people." (Actually, I'd say Toscanini considered music as a vehicle for verbally abusing people.)

The main thing required for these arguments that go on and on and on without getting anywhere is people who think it is beneath their dignity to look up a word in the dictionary. I'll repost the (somewhat condensed) definition for truth I found in Miriam Webster.



> 1) the body of real things, events, and facts
> 2) the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
> 3) sincerity in action, character, and utterance


"Truth" in a musical performance is a metaphor. Yes, we vaguely know what you mean when you say Furtwangler searches for the "truth" in music, but only vaguely. If I say that the barista in my favorite coffee shop seeks _the truth_ of the coffee when he prepares an extraordinary espresso shot and that at Starbucks they only value a generic espresso experience you'd vaguely know what I mean, vaguely. What I really mean is that my favorite barista works hard to extract the ideal blend of elements from that pile of beans and that the Barista at Starbucks follows a standardized protocol. That's what you are arguing Furtwangler does, work hard to extract the best listener experience from the notes on the page. Someone like Szell has a different idea of the best musical experience. He's not Starbucks, he's the barista at the coffee shop across the street that favors a more acerbic espresso shot.

Why do you think your application of "truth" to music is important enough to derail a discussion about Furtwangler for 20 pages is beyond me. Is it more important that what Furtwangler actually did?

So here's my analogy. Furtwangler is like a Starbucks Frappuccino, where the coffee is replete with sugar, different brightly colored syrups in fancy bottles lined up behind the bar, with whipped cream floating on top. Szell is a perfectly extracted espresso shot with a hint of crema. Neither is more true than the other. Truth is not a property that can be applied to coffee.


----------



## Guest

^^^and if you don't agree with my Furtwangler analogy, gird yourself for 20 pages of bickering!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> So here's my analogy. Furtwangler is like a Starbucks Frappuccino, where the coffee is replete with sugar, different brightly colored syrups in fancy bottles lined up behind the bar, with whipped cream floating on top. Szell is a perfectly extracted espresso shot with a hint of crema. Neither is more true than the other. Truth is not a property that can be applied to coffee.


Saying that there is truth in music is not the same as saying that one conductor is right and the other wrong, or one performance, etc. When you quote me and then proceed to make what you mistakenly think are logical extensions, then you are distorting my meaning.

Both Furtwängler and Szell were searching for musical truth. Both to certain degrees succeeded. Both are worth hearing for that reason.

You are trying to paint me into an absolutist corner when I am saying the exact opposite. My stating a preference for one over the other is not the same as saying one is right and the other wrong. I just did an extensive survey of Strauss recordings, and in the case of Tod und Verklarung I stated that I slightly preferred the Szell to the Furtwängler, though I like both. So how does that square with your absolutist distortion of me? The absolute is merely the invisible ideal I am comparing them to. We ALL do that. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a good performance vs a bad performance in our minds.

It is precisely because the perfect Beethoven recording doesn't exist that I own over a hundred of them.

This still going? As long as you distort my position it will be...


----------



## Guest

.............................


----------



## JAS

Baron Scarpia said:


> ^^^and if you don't agree with my Furtwangler analogy, gird yourself for 20 pages of bickering!


It is July 4th tomorrow, so fireworks _are_ expected.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I’m going to restate my position one more time for all eternity so that no one can again distort it. If you say that my position on this thread is that Furtwängler represented objective truth, you are a LIAR.

My position is that it is a fallacy to paint Furtwängler as subjective and certain other conductors as objective. They were ALL subjectively searching for an objective ideal.

Even the ones claiming to be objective by being “faithful” to the written score were in actuality being subjective insofar as believing that doing so was the best route towards the objective ideal. And of course we hear from their recordings that they were often as individual as anybody.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you are striving for something, by definition it exists as a "something"


Not knowing what you are striving at, you can't conclude that it exists, so far you haven't experienced it. Your striving may be wishful thinking.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> Not knowing what you are striving at, you can't conclude that it exists, so far you haven't experienced it. Your striving may be wishful thinking.


By my definition, you can never fully experience it


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm going to restate my position one more time for all eternity so that no one can again distort it.


You are distorting your position yourself by being so unclear and self-contradictory.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> By my definition, you can never fully experience it


I have serious problems with you definition.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> They were ALL subjectively searching for an objective ideal.


No they weren't. Some may have thought that they were, but they were ALL subjectively searching for a subjective ideal (- unless they were charlatans, which is a different point ).

Unless someone has Godlike understanding of what the objective ideal may be, then that's all we poor non-God entities can do.

Wow, we're onto God now.  Anyone for 20 pages of rumination on the existence of God?


----------



## annaw

Eclectic Al said:


> No they weren't. Some may have thought that they were, but they were ALL subjectively searching for a subjective ideal (- unless they were charlatans, which is a different point ).
> 
> Unless someone has Godlike understanding of what the objective ideal may be, then that's all we poor non-God entities can do.
> 
> Wow, we're onto God now.  *Anyone for 20 pages of rumination on the existence of God?*


No. No. No. I think one thing Furtwängler's conducting might not be connected to is morality :lol:.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I should come clean. I have never, to my knowledge, listened to a single recording of a Furtwangler performance, because I don't really do recordings before the point when the technology was such that you could feel you might actually be listening to what happened. Hence, the thread's starting point (fascination with Furtwangler) is not something I have a view on at all - so perhaps I should not get involved.

The reason I post here is a concern for humanity. There is so much that is wrong with a Platonist view of things (with the claim that an ideal conception has objective reality, and other problematic matters such as the idea that philosopher kings should rule) that I feel obliged to comment. If you asked me who is responsible for the deaths of so many people in the 20th century (be it in Nazi Germany or Maoist China or Stalinist Russia) then I would choose Plato and Hegel (with Marx as their dupe). Do not tell me that an objectively ideal performance exists, as I genuinely think that is the road to the gas chambers.

I must be drunk. Please do not pick me up on this post - it is way off topic. :devil:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> By my definition, you can never fully experience it


Why listen? Only leads to frustration.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> No. No. No. I think one thing Furtwängler's conducting might not be connected to is morality :lol:.


As a serial womaniser with at least 13 illegitimate children sired then I doubt whether morality was high on his list of priorities!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Unless someone has Godlike understanding of what the objective ideal may be, then that's all we poor non-God entities can do.
> 
> Wow, we're onto God now.  Anyone for 20 pages of rumination on the existence of God?


God, like truth, is an ideal of perfection that exists only in the abstract.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> God, like truth, is an ideal of perfection that exists only in the abstract.


No, please, let's not go down _this_ road!! I think there are other aspects of the fascination with Furtwängler which we can explain and which do not require us to prove or disprove the existence of God...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> God, like truth, is an ideal of perfection that exists only in the abstract.


Of all the ridiculous statements that is the most ridiculous. Where do you get these theories from?


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> Of all the ridiculous statements that is the most ridiculous. . . .


I am pretty sure that will be topped at some point. Just wait a bit.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> The reason I post here is a concern for humanity. There is so much that is wrong with a Platonist view of things (with the claim that an ideal conception has objective reality, and other problematic matters such as the idea that philosopher kings should rule)


And where do you see this concern raised? I am stating that ideal conception has no objective reality. It exists only in the abstract. And no single person is an authority on truth. That is the foundation of democracy. My entire thesis is against objectivism and absolutism. We are all imperfect subjectivists.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> God, like truth, is an ideal of perfection that exists only in the abstract.


Oh Lord. If something exists only in the abstract then it doesn't exist. Shall we talk about the meaning of "exists"? Lets go into Kant then: "existence is not a predicate".


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am stating that ideal conception has no objective reality. It exists only in the abstract.


What is the practical need for something that exists only in theory and thus does not exist in real life?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> What is the practical need for something that exists only in theory and thus does not exist in real life?


Does Beethoven's Eroica exist?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Beethoven's Eroica exist?


Oh Lord, again!
Scores of Beethoven's Eroica exist. Documents which might assist someone in constructing a performance of that score exist. Things which might help someone imagine what would be their own personal ideal of the Eroica exist. Recordings of performances of the Eroica exist. What doesn't exist is an objectively true rendering of it.

Oh, and by the way, I don't mean by "not existing" that there is something which is an objectively true rendering of the Eroica, and that thing has the property of not existing. I mean "Not: an ideal rendering of the Eroica". Existence is not a property of a thing. You can't wish something into existence by imagining it as the "abstract" and then give it a property of non-existence. All sorts of nonsense then follows.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Oh Lord, again!
> Scores of Beethoven's Eroica exist. Documents which might assist someone in constructing a performance of that score exist. Things which might help someone imagine what would be *their own personal ideal of the Eroica* exist. Recordings of performances of the Eroica exist. What doesn't exist is an objectively true rendering of it.


So does the Eroica exist only in theory?


----------



## JAS

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So does the Eroica exist only in theory?


If so, I would theoretically like to have a refund on several CD purchases.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

JAS said:


> If so, I would theoretically like to have a refund on several CD purchases.


My question is what is it? Is it tangible?


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does Beethoven's Eroica exist?


The score exists and doesn't change with time. But the music changes every time it is performed, so as music the Eroica does'n exist as an integrated entity. But this doesn't mean, that the musicians try to approach a non-existent ideal. Musicians - in my experience - use before they begin to play to have a well thought and far from abstract idea of how they want the music to sound.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So does the Eroica exist only in theory?


What thing in the world do you denote by "the Eroica"?

Musical scores exist (so far as I am aware) which are accepted as being Eroica scores. Recordings exist which are accepted as Eroica recordings. There is no "Eroica" thing that has the property of existence outside matters such as those. Eroica is more like an adjective applied to scores and recordings which share a property of Eroica-ness.

You're just misusing the word "exists". You can't meaningfully conjure up an idea, give it the status of a "thing" and then get around the fact that there is no such thing by giving it the property of non-existence, of being "abstract" if you like. The non-existence qualifier means that it is not a "thing", not that there is a "thing" which has the property of non-existence.

You may have an idea of the ideal Eroica, but that is all it is: an idea. The clue is in the word "ideal".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> The score exists and doesn't change with time. But the music changes every time it is performed, so as music the Eroica does'n exist as an integrated entity. But this doesn't mean, that the musicians try to approach a non-existent ideal. Musicians - in my experience - use before they begin to play to have a well thought and far from abstract idea of how the music *should sound*.


SHOULD sound? I thought there was no such thing as a way a piece of music SHOULD sound. Isn't that your whole issue with my thesis?


----------



## JAS

premont said:


> The score exists and doesn't change with time. But the music changes every time it is performed, so as music the Eroica does'n exist as an integrated entity. But this doesn't mean, that the musicians try to approach a non-existent ideal. Musicians - in my experience - use before they begin to play to have a well thought and far from abstract idea of how the music should sound.


Recordings of it don't change, even if we allow for new releases that are remastered.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> SHOULD sound? I thought there was no such thing as a way a piece of music SHOULD sound. Isn't that your whole issue with my thesis?


Well, a bit imprecise on my part. I mean "how they want the music to sound". Nothing metaphysichal or abstract in that.

Post above (post 835) edited.


----------



## premont

JAS said:


> Recordings of it don't change, even if we allow for new releases that are remastered.


Sure, but I meant live performances, (every time it is performed) since this displays my opinion in a better way.


----------



## JAS

premont said:


> Sure, but I meant live performances, (every time it is performed) since this displays my opinion in a better way.


But in so doing, can we ignore the fixed nature of recordings? For a live performance, we would tolerate some degree of variation, but are there variations that we might consider too extreme? Or would we just decided whether or not we liked the results?


----------



## premont

JAS said:


> But in so doing, can we ignore the fixed nature of recordings? For a live performance, we would tolerate some degree of variation, but are they variations that we might consider too extreme? Or would we just decided whether or not we liked the results?


Of course, one specific recording is fixed, but different recordings vary as much as live performances.


----------



## JAS

premont said:


> Of course, one specific recording is fixed, but different recordings vary as much as live performances.


Yes, but do they not necessarily sound enough like each other that we recognize the work?


----------



## premont

JAS said:


> Yes, but do they not necessarily sound enough like each other that we recognize the work?


Yes, they share a lot of characteristics, which we associate with Eroica mainly found in the score, but there are also some dissimilarities, so one can't say, that any of them represents THE EROICA more than the others. At concerts one will never hear the same Eroica twice. It's a bit like you can't bathe in the same river twice.


----------



## Guest

The erotica is a set of instructions for producing a performance (the score). A performance is a instantiation of the score. Just like you can have a recipe for apple pie and an actual apple pie. 

Why don’t we argue about apple pie and leave Furtwangler out of it?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> The erotica is a set of instructions for producing a performance (the score). A performance is a instantiation of the score. Just like you can have a recipe for apple pie and an actual apple pie.
> 
> Why don't we argue about apple pie and leave Furtwangler out of it?


But if Furtwängler were to use his intuition to think beyond the recipe to the spirit of apple pie, would it represent a truer apple pie?


----------



## JAS

This debate seems to be dancing around two key questions:

1) Is it possible to discern the intentions of the composer?

2) Does that matter? (In other words, are those intentions of any special importance?)


----------



## BachIsBest

premont said:


> What is the practical need for something that exists only in theory and thus does not exist in real life?


As someone in mathematics, I can assure you that there are plenty of things that exist only in theory and have practical uses.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But if Furtwängler were to use his intuition to think beyond the recipe to the spirit of apple pie, would it represent a truer apple pie?


I'm hoping this is a joke. It would be a better apple pie. Truth is not a property of pie.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BachIsBest said:


> As someone in mathematics, I can assure you that there are plenty of things that exist only in theory and have practical uses.


such as imaginary numbers "bi", complex numbers "a + bi" in electronics? 
I remember being taught in secondary school that "negative odd numbers can't be under a squareroot."
Then I went to university and guys there told me "they're not "real", but we still use them in our calculations."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> I'm hoping this is a joke. It would be a better apple pie. Truth is not a property of pie.


Need. To. Lighten. Up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Baron Scarpia said:


> The *erotica* is a set of instructions for producing a performance (the score). A performance is a instantiation of the score. Just like you can have a recipe for apple pie and an actual apple pie.
> Why don't we argue about apple pie and leave Furtwangler out of it?


----------



## Guest

^^^Can I blame autocorrect?


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> such as imaginary numbers "bi", complex numbers "a + bi" in electronics?
> I remember being taught in secondary school that "squareroot{negative odd number} can't exist."
> Then I went to university and guys there told me "they're not "real", but we still use them in our calculations."


Indeed, pi and imaginary numbers do not exist. But then neither do two or ten or one quarter. Numbers are ideas that we manipulate in our mind, and which we then may use to help us in our real world decisions and actions. It seems that doing so often leads to real world outcomes that are in line with our expectations, and in that sense they are useful to us.

Ten does not exist, but it is useful to use it to guide our actions. Similarly, the Eroica does not exist, but if someone has an idea in their head which they label "Eroica" and if that helps them to produce performances which they (and potentially others) find good then that's well and good.

We really are slap bang in the world of Plato. Plato's cave metaphor posits that perfect objects like circles exist, with our perceptions of these perfect objects being impure, like shadows cast on the wall of a cave in the flickering light of a fire. To my mind what we have learnt since his day, such as in relation to quantum theory and in terms of the logical foundations of mathematics indicates that this is not the case in the physical world, and it is far from straightforward even in the context of formal systems of logic and mathematics.

So, I have a concept of the number 5 in my mind, and I have a good idea of its properties in the context of mathematical logic. That does not mean that "5" exists: I cannot point to anything and say "that is 5". I can look at groups of objects and check whether they seem to have the property of 5-ness, but I cannot find 5 itself.

You might think that I know the properties of 5, such as that 5+3 = 8. However, if in this context we are using 5 to relate to the fifth day of the week (say Monday = 1, Tuesday = 2, etc), then I find that 5+3 = 1. This is the world of modular arithmetic with modulus 7, and there are only 7 distinct numbers in what mathematicians would call the ring of integers mod 7. In some ways 5 is similar in normal arithmetic to 5 in modular arithmetic, and in other ways it is not. Both are valid in their own way.

In a somewhat crass way, I'm trying to draw a parallel with the Eroica. You can have an idea in your head of the Eroica, and you can listen to performances and consider whether they have the property of Eroica-ness. You might feel that a performance you experience is a long way away from having the characteristics you associate with Eroica-ness and others are closer. Other people may have a different concept in mind when they refer to their Eroica concept. You are perhaps doing normal arithmetic, and I am doing modular arithmetic, but we are both thinking about 5. As someone else noted a while ago we are going to hit Wittgenstein soon, with beetles in boxes!

Enough said: there is no "objectively ideal rendering" of a piece of music.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My question is what is it? Is it tangible?


When it comes through my loudspeakers the airwaves vibrate on my ears so it is tangible


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> SHOULD sound? I thought there was no such thing as a way a piece of music SHOULD sound. Isn't that your whole issue with my thesis?


Of course there is a way that the piece of music should sound otherwise the composer needn'thave bothered to write it down. Your whole statement is perfectly ridiculous. We have musical scores to tell us the way music should sound within certain defined limits


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> The *erotica* is a set of instructions for producing a performance (the score). A performance is a instantiation of the score. Just like you can have a recipe for apple pie and an actual apple pie.
> 
> Why don't we argue about apple pie and leave Furtwangler out of it?


Please do not bring erotica into this discussion! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But if Furtwängler were to use his intuition to think beyond the recipe to the spirit of apple pie, would it represent a truer apple pie?


But you are seeming to imply that Furtwangler is the only conductor who does this. Every conductor I have who conducts this does this. Of course just how they succeed is a subjective matter of opinion and that is the whole thing that you are saying. The whole thing is subjective. The fact thatFurtwangler deviates from Beethoven's score markedly is something you like. The fact that others are far more fiery and stick to Beethoven's marking far better is something other people like


----------



## Eclectic Al

This thread is called "Explain fascination with Furtwangler". I think I now have an answer.

Furtwangler was a conductor who produced performances which some people revere.
Furtwangler claimed that an "objectively true rendering" of a piece of music exists.
It is reasonable to suppose that he was guided by his idea of this objectively true rendering in his performances.
If you revere his performances you are likely to believe that he had great insights into how best to perform the music.
It is tempting then to accept his claim for the existence of the objectively true rendering, and to believe that he had insights into this objective truth.
This is tempting because by doing so you justify your preference, as being more than just a preference, and give it the superior status of a participation in truth.

If you go down this seductive path then you have turned Furtwangler into a prophet. You have accepted the existence of an object of veneration (the objectively true performance) in accordance with his teaching, and you have positioned him as the prophet who is able to bring you closer to this object. That would make him fascinating to you.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Furtwangler claimed that an "objectively true rendering" of a piece of music exists.
> It is reasonable to suppose that he was guided by *his idea* of this objectively true rendering in his performances.


Indeed. Human beings have a long history of being motivated by ideals which don't exist. Far from being a fault, this is arguably one avenue by which we, rather tragically, achieve greatness.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".


----------



## JAS

Eclectic Al said:


> This thread is called "Explain fascination with Furtwangler". I think I now have an answer. . . .


I think you have tapped into something here. The conductors we appreciate become indelibly associated with the music that we like, perhaps even beating out the efforts of the composer.


----------



## JAS

RogerWaters said:


> Indeed. Human beings have a long history of being motivated by ideals which don't exist. Far from being a fault, this is arguably one avenue by which we, rather tragically, achieve greatness.


My often repeated idea along this line is that Hope may be lit by a flickering flame of falsehood, but sometimes burns its own path and makes things possible that would not have been achieved by any other means. (Of course, it must be admitted that hope also often ends up in disappointment.)

To achieve something great and challenging, we must first imagine that it is possible and second that it is worth the trying.


----------



## premont

Eclectic Al said:


> In a somewhat crass way, I'm trying to draw a parallel with the Eroica. You can have an idea in your head of the Eroica, and you can listen to performances and consider whether they have the property of Eroica-ness. You might feel that a performance you experience is a long way away from having the characteristics you associate with Eroica-ness and others are closer. Other people may have a different concept in mind when they refer to their Eroica concept. You are perhaps doing normal arithmetic, and I am doing modular arithmetic, but we are both thinking about 5. As someone else noted a while ago we are going to hit Wittgenstein soon, with beetles in boxes!


I do not think this works as a parallel, because parallel means comparison of similar things. While all normal people would agree upon the idea of five-ness, so this idea possess a hint of objectivity (even if it doesn't exist but in our brains), the idea of Eroica-ness is a completely subjective matter, because each of us has his/her own idea of this concept, so a common idea of Eroica-ness doesn't exist - not even in our brains. I can say, that Furtwängler's idea of Eroica is so distorted compared to mine as to have no real similarity with my idea of Eroica-ness. If we use the score as a common denominator, we will of course find some superficial similarity (key, scoring e.g.). But the score is not the music. And here we are discussing music = performance. Maybe this is what you meant, so we actually agree, but I think you put it in a different way.


----------



## Eclectic Al

premont said:


> I do not think this works as a parallel, because parallel means comparison of similar things. While all normal people would agree upon the idea of five-ness, so this idea possess a hint of objectivity (even if it doesn't exist but in our brains), the idea of Eroica-ness is a completely subjective matter, because each of us has his/her own idea of this concept, so a common idea of Eroica-ness doesn't exist - not even in our brains. I can say, that Furtwängler's idea of Eroica is so distorted compared to mine as to have no real similarity with my idea of Eroica-ness. If we use the score as a common denominator, we will of course find some superficial similarity (key, scoring e.g.). But the score is not the music. And here we are discussing music = performance. Maybe this is what you meant, so we actually agree, but I think you put it in a different way.


I do pretty much agree with this. I think musical pieces leave way too much undefined for the parallel with mathematical concepts to work well. In a way that's my point: numbers are hard to pin down, and they're quite straightforward. How much harder then to make sense of an objective truth concerning a piece of music?!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Of course there is a way that the piece of music should sound otherwise the composer needn'thave bothered to write it down. Your whole statement is perfectly ridiculous. We have musical scores to tell us the way music should sound within certain defined limits


We're at a point where you can't even tell when you're agreeing with me and when you're not.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> But you are seeming to imply that Furtwangler is the only conductor who does this. Every conductor I have who conducts this does this. Of course just how they succeed is a subjective matter of opinion and that is the whole thing that you are saying. The whole thing is subjective. The fact thatFurtwangler deviates from Beethoven's score markedly is something you like. The fact that others are far more fiery and stick to Beethoven's marking far better is something other people like


We're at a point where you can't even tell when you're agreeing with me and when you're not.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We're at a point where you can't even tell when you're agreeing with me and when you're not.


Then maybe you should look at the way you put things. Communications sir!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> This thread is called "Explain fascination with Furtwangler". I think I now have an answer.
> 
> Furtwangler was a conductor who produced performances which some people revere.
> Furtwangler claimed that an "objectively true rendering" of a piece of music exists.
> It is reasonable to suppose that he was guided by his idea of this objectively true rendering in his performances.
> If you revere his performances you are likely to believe that he had great insights into how best to perform the music.
> It is tempting then to accept his claim for the existence of the objectively true rendering, and to believe that he had insights into this objective truth.
> This is tempting because by doing so you justify your preference, as being more than just a preference, and give it the superior status of a participation in truth.
> 
> If you go down this seductive path then you have turned Furtwangler into a prophet. You have accepted the existence of an object of veneration (the objectively true performance) in accordance with his teaching, and you have positioned him as the prophet who is able to bring you closer to this object. That would make him fascinating to you.


They are all doing the same thing. I just like Furtwängler's way generally better. It's only fascinating to people who don't agree, apparently.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

JAS said:


> I think you have tapped into something here. The conductors we appreciate become indelibly associated with the music that we like, perhaps even beating out the efforts of the composer.


Definitely not in my case, exactly the opposite. Furtwängler's specialty is in the composers that I like best, so it's only natural that I should appreciate him. To me his way with the German Romantics is perfectly natural, and it is the so-called objectivists who sound idiosyncratic.

I have never met anyone who liked Furtwängler first and then liked the music he conducted. Most have been like me, liking the music and then discovering in Furtwängler a manner of interpretation that sounded as near to ideal as we have ever heard. The Beethoven 9th, for example. Always among my favorites, and I always was searching for the best interpretation. Furtwängler beat them all.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There is a clear parallel between conductors and religion. Saying that one conductor is right and all the others wrong is just as silly as saying that one religion is right and all the others wrong. They are all imperfectly striving for the same objective ideal. And different ones appeal to different people in their search for the same. In that sense, all conductors are like priests.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have never met anyone who liked Furtwängler first and then liked the music he conducted. Most have been like me, liking the music and then discovering in Furtwängler a manner of interpretation that sounded as near to ideal as we have ever heard. The Beethoven 9th, for example. Always among my favorites, and I always was searching for the best interpretation. Furtwängler beat them all.


I actually don't like Beethoven's symphonies as much as many but I still love to hear Furtwängler do them time and time again. I didn't like the 9th all that much until I heard '51 (2?) Bayreuth, and it was a revelatory spiritual experience. Now I've come to love the symphony and there are several other more "mainstream" interpretations that I've come to like, but nothing reminds me of the universal spirit of human brotherhood that Beethoven strove for in the 9th like Furtwängler's vision of it. Also just last week, I finally came around on the Schumann 4th after hearing Furt's scintillatingly intense early '50's studio performance for the first time.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a clear parallel between conductors and religion. Saying that one conductor is right and all the others wrong is just as silly as saying that one religion is right and all the others wrong. They are all imperfectly striving for the same objective ideal. And different ones appeal to different people in their search for the same. In that sense, all conductors are like priests.


I don't think that one chooses religion based on what appeals to her but on what is the truth I believe to be the truth based on whatever I want to base my faith upon. Also, I wouldn't say that all religions are striving for the same truth, quite certainly not. But, please, let's avoid religious discussion! Religion is a much bigger and more significant topic than e.g whose rendition of Beethoven's symphonies I like the best.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a clear parallel between conductors and religion. Saying that one conductor is right and all the others wrong is just as silly as saying that one religion is right and all the others wrong. They are all imperfectly striving for the same objective ideal. And different ones appeal to different people in their search for the same. In that sense, all conductors are like priests.


Agree with everything here, except that what they are striving for are subjective ideals. And that they are not so like priests, unless you go for the objective ideal thing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Old, lo-fi recordings are what Marshall McLuhan would call a "hot" medium, like reading, because it demands a higher degree of effort and imagination to "get into it."

Hi-def television (and sound) is a "cool" medium, because little involvement is required: the images and sounds are so clear that we can simply let them wash over us, as they demand little effort. The medium's doing all the work.

I've always thought that this said something about the people who listen to old recordings. Like aficionados of old blues recordings, they are after a "truth" which seems to exist authentically in such old recordings.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a clear parallel between conductors and religion. Saying that one conductor is right and all the others wrong is *just as silly as saying that one religion is right and all the others wrong.* They are all imperfectly striving for the same objective ideal. And different ones appeal to different people in their search for the same. In that sense, all conductors are like priests.


The logical consequence of this is that all religions are either right or wrong, they can't be in between. In contrast to conductors, who from a logical point of view may be more or less right - even if we can't assess strictly what they are.


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> Like aficionados of old blues recordings, they are after a "truth" which seems to exist authentically in such old recordings.


You may well be correct. The key word is "seems". If I have to put that much work into listening to something then surely that means it will be worth more than something which doesn't require so much effort. Things may indeed often seem like that.

At the opposite extreme are perhaps people who spend a fortune on the most sophisticated equipment and insist on the highest technical standards in the recording. They are investing in their listening in more of a financial way, but I suspect the motivation is the same. What I get out of the experience must be close to the truth because I put so much into realising it.


----------



## premont

millionrainbows said:


> Old, lo-fi recordings are what Marshall McLuhan would call a "hot" medium, like reading, because it demands a higher degree of effort and imagination to "get into it.


And the imagination may supplement what can't be perceived because of the dated sound. In this way an old recording may sound better in some ears, than it objectively is.


----------



## millionrainbows

premont said:


> And the imagination may supplement what can't be perceived because of the dated sound. In this way an old recording may sound better in some ears, than it objectively is.


Like reading, we supply mental images of the story. This is not "bettering" the sound, but perhaps _better interpreting_ other aspects, like the "gestures" and meaning of the music without all that distracting hi-fi sound.

I mean, if the musical impact of an old Furtwangler recording comes through in lo-fi, then he must be doing _something_ right (to those who have the ability to perceive such things).

i.e. the musically literate


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Here’s a mind-blowing concept. Maybe some people just prefer the performances on these older recordings. 

It never ceases to amaze me how often when people are confronted with tastes different from their own, they feel the need to invent alternate theories to explain it other than a simple difference of opinion.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Furtwangler is the ultimate "Dionysian" conductor and he demonstrated how free expression can be achieved while being faithful to the musical text.

I dare the OP to find another conductor that is capable of such wild imagination, unbridled passion, swooning rubato, fluid lines, tactile sound, unaffected spontaneity, while at the same time achieving the structural unity and the finely controlled details of the score.

By contrast, taskmasters such as Toscanini and Szell only achieve control by taking away the agency of the individual member of the orchestra. In other words, they treat musicians as instruments of expression not an end in itself, to put int Kantian terms. If we get philosophical about it, I will take Furtwangler's aesthetic ideal over Toscanini any day.

Don't believe me? Listen for yourself the 1945 recording of last movement of Brahms 1st with BPO (other movements are sadly lost), which can be find here




or how about the massive fugue in the last movement of Bruckner 5th in this 1942 recording with BPO





If you are not intoxicated by these performances, then perhaps nothing will.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Agree with everything here, except that what they are striving for are subjective ideals. And that they are not so like priests, unless you go for the objective ideal thing.


An ancient greek striving for Zeus or a norseman stiving for Thor were striving for objective ideals. It just happened to be the case that those ideals didn't exist. I.e. they were _striving _for something that, if it happened to exist, was objective.

Fartwangler was striving for something objective. It just happened to be the case that what he was striving for ('musical truth' outside of the score) didn't exist. Doesn't mean he didn't make some attractive music along the way, though. (Doesn't mean he did, either. Will depend on subjective preferences whether he did or not).


----------



## DaddyGeorge

millionrainbows said:


> Old, lo-fi recordings are what Marshall McLuhan would call a "hot" medium, like reading, because it demands a higher degree of effort and imagination to "get into it."
> 
> Hi-def television (and sound) is a "cool" medium, because little involvement is required: the images and sounds are so clear that we can simply let them wash over us, as they demand little effort. The medium's doing all the work.
> 
> I've always thought that this said something about the people who listen to old recordings. Like aficionados of old blues recordings, they are after a "truth" which seems to exist authentically in such old recordings.


That's an interesting idea. A lot of people (including me) prefer a book to a movie. I've always preferred even to read Shakespeare's plays rather than watch them in a theater. The actors and director (although they were great) didn't fulfill my notions and expectations. The fewer stimuli, the more our imagination works and it completes reality to (for us) the most perfect result. So we idealize an imperfect entry. Maybe it's also because the lo-fi recording better hides any imperfections, while in a modern recording we notice every small mistake which we often find annoying. It reminds me of piano exams at the conservatory, when the play of classmates (which we heard behind the door) always sounded brilliant. Teachers inside often perceived it differently...


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how often when people are confronted with tastes different from their own, they feel the need to invent alternate theories to explain it other than a simple difference of opinion.


Mr Speaker, I would like to call attention to the fact that the Member from Furtwangler believes his musical preferences track objective truth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Mr Speaker, I would like to call attention to the fact that the Member from Furtwangler believes his musical preferences track objective truth.


But I believe the same regarding everyone's musical preferences. I have made it abundantly clear that my preferences are no better than anyone else's. There is my version of truth, and there is your version of truth.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But I believe the same regarding everyone's musical preferences. I have made it abundantly clear that my preferences are no better than anyone else's. There is my version of truth, and there is your version of truth.


Mr Speaker, I believe my religious beliefs are closer to the objective truth than those barbarians across the way. However, they can have their own version of the truth if they want.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But I believe the same regarding everyone's musical preferences. I have made it abundantly clear that my preferences are no better than anyone else's. There is my version of truth, and there is your version of truth.


The Member for Furtwangler: 'Mr Speaker, I believe 2+2=4 while the Member from Karajan believes 2+2=3. I say, my belief is objective true. But I also say his is objectively true, too!'

The Member for logic and common sense: 'Mr Speaker, would the Member for Furtwangler care to enlighten the House on how 2+2=4 can be objectively true at the same time as 2+2=3, and how, if this were possible, objective truth as a concept would not be wholly mocked and trampled on'?


----------



## annaw

RogerWaters said:


> The Member for Furtwangler: 'Mr Speaker, I believe 2+2=4 while the Member from Karajan believes 2+2=3. I say, my belief is objective true. But I also say his is objectively true, too!'
> 
> The Member for logic and common sense: 'Mr Speaker, would the Member for Furtwangler care to enlighten the House on how 2+2=4 can be objective true at the same time as 2+2=3 and how, if this were possible, objective truth as a concept would not be wholly mocked and trampled on'?


This is very disturbing - I just spent lots of time (too much time?) watching John Bercow tell off different parliament members and then I come here to find this :lol:.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> The Member for Furtwangler: 'Mr Speaker, I believe 2+2=4 while the Member from Karajan believes 2+2=3. I say, my belief is objective true. But I also say his is objectively true, too!'
> 
> The Member for logic and common sense: 'Mr Speaker, would the Member for Furtwangler care to enlighten the House on how 2+2=4 can be objectively true at the same time as 2+2=3, and how, if this were possible, objective truth as a concept would not be wholly mocked and trampled on'?


Then why do I think Karajan's Tod und Verklarung and Die Zauberflote are better than Furtwängler's?

Why did Furtwängler say after hearing Abendroth conduct Die Meistersinger at Bayreuth, "Couldn't have done it better myself."

Maybe you should spend more time understanding and less time arguing.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Then why do I think Karajan's Tod und Verklarung and Die Zauberflote are better than Furtwängler's?
> 
> Why did Furtwängler say after hearing Abendroth conduct Die Meistersinger at Bayreuth, "Couldn't have done it better myself."
> 
> Maybe you should spend more time understanding and less time arguing.


But earlier you claimed that in your subjective opinion, Furtwängler is objectively better or at least preferable.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Maybe you should spend more time understanding and less time arguing.


The Member for Logic and Common sense: 'Mr Speaker, in light of the Member for Furtwangler's odd belief that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=3 can be objectively true at the same time, if held by different people, I hold that he is unfit to cast judgement on other Members' faculities of understanding!'


----------



## JAS

RogerWaters said:


> The Member for Logic and Common sense: 'Mr Speaker, in light of the Member for Furtwangler's odd belief that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=3 can be objectively true at the same time, I hold that he is unfit to cast judgement on other Members' faculities of understanding!'


Under the current powers that be, 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 1 million, but 100,000 + 50,000 is nearly zero (depending on the circumstances). Therefore, under the new directives, the request is denied.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

...but does it sound good?


----------



## RogerWaters

JAS said:


> Under the current powers that be, 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 1 million, but 100,000 + 50,000 is nearly zero (depending on the circumstances). Therefore, under the new directives, the request is denied.


 Mr Speaker: 'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-for ever!.'


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

You may not like Furtwangler's conducting style and Dionysian aesthetics, but what he can achieve is undeniable: great sense of lines and flows, intoxicating rubato, tactile sounds, rounded downbeats, expressiveness of individual parts of the orchestra, imaginative and surprising, structural integrity and unaffected spontaneity at the same time and so on.

Furtwangler shows how free artistic expression can be achieved while remaining faithful to the musical text. In his music making, everyone is free: the composer, the conductor, the musicians and the listener. This type of freedom is perhaps best captured by one saying in the Analects of Confucius, that "he (Confucius) in his 70s can do whatever he wishes without breaking a rule".

We love music not because we want to be fettered by all it's structures and forms, counterpunctal rules, or rhythmic rigor, we love music because we seek emancipation through these rules. A great artist, in my humber opinion, must transcend the rules and inhibitions (not breaking the rules) and take us there. Furtwangler is the ultimate embodiment of that ideal.


----------



## Heck148

DaddyGeorge said:


> Maybe it's also because the lo-fi recording better hides any imperfections, while in a modern recording we notice every small mistake which we often find annoying.


I don't think so....every recording has imperfections....some may be pretty apparent, others quite subtle and pretty well hidden....old v. new isn't all that crucial, ime....


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> The Member for Logic and Common sense: 'Mr Speaker, in light of the Member for Furtwangler's odd belief that both 2+2=4 and 2+2=3 can be objectively true at the same time, if held by different people, I hold that he is unfit to cast judgement on other Members' faculities of understanding!'


No, he said different people can have different subjective understandings of what they believe to be the objective truth; there should be nothing controversial about this. Two scientists often disagree on what is correct, surely only one of them is objectively true.

Whether this all really applies to Furtwangler recordings is another question. But certainly, different people can hold different, reasonable views, on what the objective truth is especially when there is not a ton of evidence.


----------



## JAS

RogerWaters said:


> Mr Speaker: 'If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-for ever!.'


The future has been sent off to committee, where it is likely never to be seen again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> No, he said different people can have different subjective understandings of what they believe to be the objective truth; there should be nothing controversial about this. Two scientists often disagree on what is correct, surely only one of them is objectively true.
> 
> Whether this all really applies to Furtwangler recordings is another question. But certainly, different people can hold different, reasonable views, on what the objective truth is especially when there is not a ton of evidence.


Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity. Reading comprehension exists.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> But earlier you claimed that in your subjective opinion, Furtwängler is objectively better or at least preferable.


I said, on the whole, on more occasions than not, Furtwängler has gotten closer to my idea of the objective ideal in the works that I like.

Maybe tomorrow someone will introduce me to a conductor who I like even better. You got one?


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> No, he said different people can have different subjective understandings of what they believe to be the objective truth; there should be nothing controversial about this. Two scientists often disagree on what is correct, surely only one of them is objectively true.


Ah splendid! Then, as I have repeatedly illustrated, Brahmsianhound is committed to the idea that others are *mistaken* in their preference for conductors other than Lord Fartwangler, if he believes Fartwangler is closer to the objective truth than other conductors!

But, you see, this is something he refuses to admit. But he can't have it both ways! He can't say two people can strive for the objective truth, with opposing beliefs, and both be correct! That would be either:

1. Stupid, if he doesn't see the obvious logical contradiction
2. Malicious, if he is taking 'objective truth' to be relative to individuals, as that is clearly not the meaning of 'objective truth'!

Can we get a 'hallelujah!' for finally reaching the crux of the matter?!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Maybe tomorrow someone will introduce me to a conductor who I like even better. You got one?





RogerWaters said:


> Ah splendid! Then, as I have repeatedly illustrated, Brahmsianhound is committed to the idea that others are *mistaken* in their preference for conductors other than Lord Fartwangler, if he believes Fartwangler is closer to the objective truth than other conductors!
> 
> Can we get a 'hallelujah!' for finally reaching the crux of the matter?!


You can't make things like this up. Literally the last words I typed before your ridiculous post.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You can't make things like this up. Literally the last words I typed before your ridiculous post.


Ah so you've changed your belief, then, that Furtwangler was closer to attaining the objective truth of certain bits of music than other composers?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Ah so you've changed your belief, then, that Furtwangler was closer to attaining the objective truth of certain bits of music than other composers?


I haven't changed anything. But I always can. It's a preference.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's an opinion, a preference. It can even change.


Of course Minds can change. That's not the issue. Do you or do you not currently maintain the belief that fuetwangler achieves musical truth?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Of course Minds can change. That's not the issue. Do you or do you not currently maintain the belief that fuetwangler achieves musical truth?


No one achieves musical truth. We can only approximate it. In my opinion - and many agree with me - Furtwängler generally came the closest in the music of the German Romantics.

Now, I'm really done. There's nothing you can ask that I haven't already said a million times.


----------



## RogerWaters

Apologies, I realised my misrepresentation after writing that. 

Do you believe F is closer to achieving musical truth than others? If so, you can't at the same time hold that other conductors are closer, for other people, to musical truth. At least, not without committing yourself to the following proposition:

That objective truth can differ from person to person.

This, of course, is a logical contradiction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Apologies, I realised my misrepresentation after writing that.
> 
> Do you believe F is closer to achieving musical truth than others? If so, you can't at the same time hold that other conductors are closer, for other people, to musical truth. At least, not without committing yourself to the following proposition:
> 
> That objective truth can differ from person to person.
> 
> This, of course, is a logical contradiction.


People disagree on objective truth all the time. In the case of music, no one can ever fully know it. I certainly don't.

I've said this countless times already, so STOP!!!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People disagree on objective truth all the time. In the case of music, no one can ever fully know it. I certainly don't.
> 
> I've said this countless times already, so STOP!!!


But you said above you believe F comes closer to objective truth in music than other composers! If you don't "know" objective truth in music, how on earth can you say F is closer to it than other composers?

Don't you see why people are confused?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> But you said above you believe F comes closer to objective truth in music than other composers! If you don't "know" objective truth in music, how on earth can you say F is closer to it than other composers?
> 
> Don't you see why people are confused?


I said I'm done repeating myself. I answered this question at the top of this page.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said I'm done repeating myself. I answered this question at the top of this page.


Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to two propositions:

1. That objective truth in music is unknowable
2. That a certain conductor comes closest to attaining objective truth in music

I leave it to the intellectual acument of other Members to determine the sanity of any individual who endorses both concurrently.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Mr Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to two propositions:
> 
> 1. That objective truth in music is unknowable
> 2. That a certain conductor comes closest to attaining objective truth in music
> 
> I leave it to the intellectual acument of other Members to determine the sanity of any individual who endorses both concurrently.


This is again ridiculous. I don't know whether we can fully know the nature of reality through science (it might be we can not), but I'm almost positive we are closer to knowing it now than at any other period in history. In other words: one can simultaneously not know something completely, but still, have a good enough idea about it to determine whether one of two things are closer.

You seem to be misinterpreting Brahmsianhorn's words and then applying flawed logic (while calling Furtwangler, one of the most respected conductors of all time, Lord Fartwangler) in some attempt to 'trap' him. I'm not sure what the point of all this is.

Edit: I would just like to state that I don't really agree with a lot of Brahmsianhorn's views in case my defence would lead other's to believe this.


----------



## annaw

BachIsBest said:


> This is again ridiculous. I don't know whether we can fully know the nature of reality through science (it might be we can not), but I'm almost positive we are closer to knowing it now than at any other period in history. In other words: one can simultaneously not know something completely, but still, have a good enough idea about it to determine whether one of two things are closer.
> 
> You seem to be misinterpreting Brahmsianhorn's words and then applying flawed logic (while calling Furtwangler, one of the most respected conductors of all time, Lord Fartwangler) in some attempt to 'trap' him. I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
> 
> Edit: I would just like to state that I don't really agree with a lot of Brahmsianhorn's views in case my defence would lead other's to believe this.


But I don't know we have got an even approximation of what this truth is. Or have we? Science has some idea; I, at the moment, have really no idea what the underlying truth of Beethoven's _Eroica_ could be. Sure, I have preferences regarding how it should be played but I suppose that's not the inherent objective truth we are here talking about.


----------



## BachIsBest

annaw said:


> But I don't know we have got an even approximation of what is truth is. Or have we? Science has some idea; I, at the moment, have really no idea what the underlying truth of Beethoven's _Eroica_ could be. Sure, I have preferences regarding how it should be played but I suppose that's not the inherent objective truth we are here talking about.


As I said, I'm not sure on all of Brahmsianhorn's beliefs, I just think the apparent 'contradictions' being pointed out aren't a serious attempt to argue against them.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK, I'll try another tack.

We all have brains which are wired somewhat differently; we have different hormonal balances; we have different life experiences. This means that our response to stimulus is likely to be different (- inevitably in my view).

Therefore, if one of us is presented with a performance of a piece of music it will affect them in a particular fashion; another person will react differently. These reactions are real for each of us and different for each of us. They are subjective.

This means that the ideal for me (if it could be achieved) is unlikely to be the ideal for you, and vice versa. There is no objective ideal precisely because we are individuals. In my world view that is also something to be celebrated.

To posit that there is an objective ideal for a piece of music is deeply worrying because it undermines the status of individuals. It attaches primacy to a non-individualised conception of what matters.

Dictionary definition to remind us: objective (adj) - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Hence, the statement I make above is a very direct consequence of belief in an objective ideal: that belief directly and absolutely undermines the status of individuals.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I consider Plato and Hegel the key figures leading to the paramount horrors of the 20th century (the holocaust, the treatment of the kulaks, Mao's great leap forward, Pol Pot, etc). The reason for this view is precisely their role as key figures in objective idealism.

The problem is that while the argument for an objective ideal can seem safe in the context of music, precisely the same form of argument can just as easily be applied to religious belief or political organisation. In the case of religious belief it can be dangerous (as we have often seen), but it may be saved because the objective ideal is often to exist in a spiritual realm. In the case of politics the objective ideal is to be realised (or aimed for) in this world.

So the objective ideal (or utopia) is to be realised in this world, and those who don't agree are wrong, and even worse they are in the way. We know where that leads.

To say that we have different beliefs concerning the nature of this objective ideal really doesn't help. We believe that the ideal to which we are striving is the objective ideal, or is at least truer to it than that of others (because otherwise we would adopt their ideal as we would then believe that to be truer). The observation that others are striving for different ideals (which they may also claim as objective) does not cause us to accept the difference; it causes us to contend with each other for supremacy. You can see that in this thread.

So we consider something, and hypothesise an ideal, but some of us give this an extra "importance" by claiming that it is objective rather than subjective (and even more bizarrely claim that it exists). Why do people do this? It's presumably something in their psychology, and by my own lights I must accept that, because they are entitled to their own view (and otherwise I am contradicting my own celebration of difference). However, I don't have to like it. And I do think it is fair to note that the same argument leads to very dark places when applied in other contexts.


----------



## annaw

BachIsBest said:


> No, he said different people can have different subjective understandings of what they believe to be the objective truth; there should be nothing controversial about this. Two scientists often disagree on what is correct, surely only one of them is objectively true.
> 
> Whether this all really applies to Furtwangler recordings is another question. But certainly, different people can hold different, reasonable views, on what the objective truth is especially when there is not a ton of evidence.


The difference is that a scientist knows that objective truth exists. In this discussion... I don't think anyone has proved that it does.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> The difference is that a scientist knows that objective truth exists. In this discussion... I don't think anyone has proved that it does.


They certainly haven't. They haven't even explained which it could mean.

Whether or not objective reality exists in scientific matters, at least scientists have a test - that of falsifiability. They accept their theories are "provisionally true" and then seek to falsify them. The more they fail in that endeavour the greater their confidence in their theories, but there is always the possibility that they are wrong. Hence, I think the key difference with scientists is that scientific theories make predictions, and those predictions can be tested.

How would you test the truth of a musical performance? This reference to truth in the musical context just make no sense to me at all.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> one can simultaneously not know something completely, but still, have a good enough idea about it to determine whether one of two things are closer.


First of all, I have very little credence in the idea that this was BH's actual position, as opposed to your more nauanced revision of it. To say I was willfully misrepreseting his position is a bit rich, considering the lack of logical dexterity he has displayed in other matters on this thread, such as: claiming that F is closer to objective truth in much music while also claiming (laughably) that this doesn't entail that other interpretations are further from objective truth (and hence that, say, a Karajan fan is in some real sense 'wrong' about music F is more 'true' at).

Second, please explain to the House, if you will be so kind, what you have in mind by determining whether a conductor is closer than another to attaining objective truth in musical performance?! In order to defend such nonsense you will need:

1. An account of what 'objective truth', in the case of music, _actually is_, plus
2. An account of how, when we encounter a performance approaching objective musical truth, we can be _justified in judging_ this performance to be approaching objective musical truth, as opposed to being nowhere near it.

By way of comparison - mechanistic explanation in science (say, of the circulatory system):

1. An account of 'objective truth' is correspondence/isomorphism between visual representations of the circulatory system and the circulatory system of a species-typical human being. There is no comparison when it comes to music.
2. We can judge the truth of a particular representation of the human circulatory system by looking at it and and comparing its degree of correspondence with a species-typical human. If the visual representation depicts the heart as the shape of a baseball bat, then it looses out to one which depicts the heart as the shape of a fist-sized clump of muscle. Again, there is no comparison to music.

By way of comparison - mathematical explanation:

1. An account of objective truth is more mysterious, admittedly, however:
2. We can judge a mathematical system's proximity to objective truth by using it to do something in the world. Design a rocket using a mathematical system in which 1+1=3, and see if you get your unfortunate astronauts back alive. Again, there is no comparison when it comes to music. Furthermore, anyone trained in mathematics or indeed merely in thinking straight simply 'feels' that 1+1=2 and not 3. There is no comparison when it comes to music, to which numerous threads on this forum attest.


----------



## mikeh375

*Quote Originally Posted by BachIsBest .......
*
....one can simultaneously not know something completely, but still, have a good enough idea about it to determine whether one of two things are closer.



RogerWaters said:


> Formidable!
> 
> Please explain to the House, if you will be so kind, what you have in mind by determining whether a conductor is closer than another to attaining objective truth in musical performance?! In order to defend such nonsense you will need:
> 
> 1. An account of what 'objective truth', in the case of music, actually is, plus
> 2. An account of how, when we encounter a performance approaching objective musical truth, we can know this performance _as approaching_ objective musical truth, as opposed to being nowhere near it.


I'm on your side generally in this thread Roger but BachisBest's post actually resonates with me as a composer too. Sometimes, one instinctively feels there is a destination for the work, even if one cannot hear it yet. This can apply to the whole work , sections or just phrases. Trying out options generally gives you a feel for which is closer to the as yet, undefined goal. It's sometimes like a hunt or a flushing out of something not quite aurally tangible but once found, it feels right. This is, I might add, subjective still and not objective imo.
Sorry if this is a digression.


----------



## RogerWaters

mikeh375 said:


> *Quote Originally Posted by BachIsBest .......
> *
> ....one can simultaneously not know something completely, but still, have a good enough idea about it to determine whether one of two things are closer.
> 
> I'm on your side generally in this thread Roger but BachisBest's post actually resonates with me as a composer too. Sometimes, one instinctively feels there is a destination for the work, even if one cannot hear it yet. This can apply to the whole work , sections or just phrases. Trying out options generally gives you a feel for which is closer to the as yet, undefined goal. It's sometimes like a hunt or a flushing out of something not quite aurally tangible but once found, it feels right. This is, I might add, subjective still and not objective imo.
> Sorry if this is a digression.


Not a digression, but an agreement with what I and many others are saying. What you seem to be referring to are judgements about which of two ideas are closer.... to what _sounds good_, not to what is an 'objectively true' end-point (just as you ackowledge at the end).


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> Not a digression, but an agreement with what I and many others are saying. What you seem to be referring to are judgements about which of two ideas are closer.... to what _sounds good_, not to what is an 'objectively true' end-point (just as you ackowledge at the end).


Absolutely. Both words "objective" and "truth" are problematic in this context.

Objective means that it is not specific to an individual (say a composer, in determining where to go with their piece of music).
True means that there is a proposition being put, and that it can be allocated to "true" by a truth function of some sort. (In the case of maths that would be in a formal logical system, and in the case of the world it would mean establishing an identity between the proposition and the state of the world.)

The use of the word objective is morally questionable (as I argued earlier), and the use of the word true is just baffling.


----------



## mikeh375

RogerWaters said:


> Not a digression, but an agreement with what I and many others are saying. What you seem to be referring to are judgements about which of two ideas are closer.... to what _sounds good_, not to what is an 'objectively true' end-point (just as you ackowledge at the end).


Yes it certainly come down to what sounds good, but another factor is at play, related, but more subtle, that of inevitability. The feeling that whatever is written is an inexorable consequence of everything that has led up to it. This property could also be described via BachisBest's post, however I acknowledge that this too is aesthetically subjective and not indicative of an objective or even pre-determined path, especially given the limitless options one has in the course of a work.
I'll stop blurring lines now.


----------



## RogerWaters

mikeh375 said:


> Yes it certainly come down to what sounds good, but another factor is at play, related, but more subtle, that of inevitability. The feeling that whatever is written is an inexorable consequence of everything that has led up to it. This property could also be described via BachisBest's post, however I acknowledge that this too is aesthetically subjective and not indicative of an objective or even pre-determined path.
> I'll stop blurring lines now.


I know what you mean. I would think the 'inevitability' of, say, the sub-dominant to the tonic is a result of the structure of the human nervous system - in this sense it might be 'intersubjective', but it's not objective. I.e. It's certainly not WRONG to go from the sub-dominant to some completely messed up chord, even if it sounds crazy. If this were the case, Shoenberg would have been making literal ERRORS throughout most his career - akin to the way '1+1=3' is an error. Shoenberg's music is arguably very ghastly, but it definitely doesn't make objective mistakes.


----------



## mikeh375

I'm glad you edited there Roger as you just saved me some mental effort in expounding upon what I thought was just a tonal response from you...phew.
Despite Schoenberg's rigour, no inevitability was guaranteed and that desirable property still had to be worked for as it does in tonality. It just degraded the intersubjective somewhat.... 
I feel I'm derailing this a little so I will step back now.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> The use of the word objective is *morally questionable* (as I argued earlier), and the use of the word true is just baffling.


What is your scientific basis for calling something morally questionable? It's the same concept. We believe morality exists, yet no one can definitively prove his version of morality superior to any other.

You say that belief in an objective musical truth takes power away from the individual. How? It can only be perceived by the individual. No one has the power to decide musical truth for someone else. That's the whole point of my thesis! You make it sound as if someone would feel oppressed as a result. How? Every single individual has their own version of the truth.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What is your scientific basis for calling something morally questionable? It's the same concept. We believe morality exists, yet no one can definitively prove his version of morality superior to any other.
> 
> You say that belief in an objective musical truth takes power away from the individual. How? It can only be perceived by the individual. No one has the power to decide musical truth for someone else. That's the whole point of my thesis! You make it sound as if someone would feel oppressed as a result. How? Every single individual has their own version of the truth.


It's not objective.

Here's the definition again: Objective (adj) - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

By referring to something as objective you are precisely saying that my feelings or opinions have no place. That is what it means.

You are saying that if we knew enough we would end up agreeing about the ideal, because it is objective (even if we don't in point of fact currently have the knowledge to define it precisely).

I do feel oppressed by that. I also find it scary.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> It's not objective.
> 
> Here's the definition again: Objective (adj) - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
> 
> By referring to something as objective you are precisely saying that my feelings or opinions have no place. That is what it means.
> 
> You are saying that if we knew enough we would end up agreeing about the ideal, because it is objective (even if we don't in point of fact currently have the knowledge to define it precisely).
> 
> I do feel oppressed by that. I also find it scary.


This is so absurd it borders on the ridiculous. Why should you feel any more oppressed than anyone else? By definition, to be oppressed there must be an oppressor. Who is the oppressor under my scenario?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is so absurd it borders on the ridiculous. Why should you feel any more oppressed than anyone else? By definition, to be oppressed there must be an oppressor. Who is the oppressor under my scenario?


The oppressor is someone who (i) believes that an objective truth exists in a field which is properly a matter of human judgement, and (ii) thinks that they have insight into this truth.

It is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes frequently have what are often referred to as "education camps", rather than "debating rooms".

If you (i) claim the existence of an objective truth and (ii) claim to have some insight into it, then when you discuss it with someone who disagrees you are not debating as persons with equivalent moral status; you are educating the unenlightened. You are operating in the belief that the reason they don't agree with you is because they don't have your insight into the truth. The appropriate course, if you believe that, is indeed to enforce your view, as it represents insight into the truth. This view gives you the right, and some would argue the obligation, to suppress alternative viewpoints in order to serve the truth.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said, on the whole, on more occasions than not, Furtwängler has gotten closer to *my idea* of *the objective ideal* in the works that I like.
> 
> Maybe tomorrow someone will introduce me to a conductor who I like even better. You got one?


You see no logical contradiction in this? How is the ideal "objective" if different people have their own idea of what the ideal performance is? That is the opposite of what objective means. If you take out the word "objective" no one would disagree with you.

It is not simply a matter of semantics. I agree that Furtwangler was a unique talent, but his performances are very personal, and in some cases strike me as very different from the composer's intent.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> The oppressor is someone who (i) believes that an objective truth exists in a field which is properly a matter of human judgement, and (ii) thinks that they have insight into this truth.
> 
> It is no coincidence that totalitarian regimes frequently have what are often referred to as "education camps", rather than "debating rooms".
> 
> If you (i) claim the existence of an objective truth and (ii) claim to have some insight into it, then when you discuss it with someone who disagrees you are not debating as persons with equivalent moral status; you are educating the unenlightened. You are operating in the belief that the reason they don't agree with you is because they don't have your insight into the truth. The appropriate course, if you believe that, is indeed to enforce your view, as it represents insight into the truth. This view gives you the right, and some would argue the obligation, to suppress alternative viewpoints in order to serve the truth.


But everyone has insight into the truth and no one has a monopoly on it. The belief in universal truth is exactly why we have civil rights.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> You see no logical contradiction in this? How is the ideal "objective" if different people have their own idea of what the ideal performance is? That is the opposite of what objective means. If you take out the word "objective" no one would disagree with you.
> 
> It is not simply a matter of semantics. I agree that Furtwangler was a unique talent, but his performances are very personal, and very different from the composer's intent.


Because no one ever gets to the objective. How many times do I have to repeat myself?


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said, on the whole, on more occasions than not, Furtwängler has gotten closer to my idea of the objective ideal in the works that I like.


It was clever of you finally to substitute "truth" with "ideal". Leaves a hint of hope, that you are beginning to understand. Now you just need to substitute "objective" with "subjective",


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because no one ever gets to the objective. How many times do I have to repeat myself?


By all means, stop repeating yourself.

Imagine people building microphones. As technology improves they can get closer and closer to an objective ideal, which is absolute fidelity to the sound field. They can compare. "My microphone has perfect frequency response." "Yes, but my microphone has greater linearity and lower intermodular distortion." "By my microphone has better transient response." "Well, we have also improved linearity." And as they all improve their products they become more and more indistinguishable.

As your Furtwangler performances get closer and closer to your ideal, they get farther and farther from my ideal. The inescapable conclusion is that there is no "objective" ideal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> As your Furtwangler performances get closer and closer to your ideal, they get farther and farther from my ideal. The inescapable conclusion is that there is no "objective" ideal.


LOL no, the conclusion is that you and I have different perspectives on the objective ideal.

But it still exists.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But everyone has insight into the truth and no one has a monopoly on it. The belief in universal truth is exactly why we have civil rights.


Mr Speaker, if no one has a monopoly on truth, then why would someone make the claim that no one has a monopoly on truth? Presumably the one making this claims believe they are onto a truth that isn't relative. In other words, Mr Speaker, the very idea of saying truth is relative is contradictory!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But everyone has insight into the truth and no one has a monopoly on it. The belief in universal truth is exactly why we have civil rights.


Whose universal truth are we talking about here? I am not special; I have no privileged insight into some universal truth. How will this supposed universal truth help guide my actions if I don't know what it is? If I do have some idea of what it is, then how do I treat the views of those who disagree with it?

Belief in universal truth is likely to remove rights, as it undermines the status of people who do not agree with someone else's view of that "universal truth".

People accord each other rights because they accept that they are separate moral agents: I have an obligation to accept the autonomy of others, precisely because otherwise I have no reason to expect them to accept my autonomy.

If I claim my positions are rooted in a universal truth that I have insight into, then I am on the road to giving myself license to override the differing opinions of others. We can see the education camps beckoning again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Mr Speaker, if no one has a monopoly on truth, then why would someone make the claim _that no one has a monopoly on truth_? Presumably the one making this claims believe they are onto a truth that isn't relative. In other words, Mr Speaker, the very idea of saying truth is relative is contradictory!


Saying no one has a monopoly on the truth is not saying truth is relative. I don't believe truth is relative. I believe it is absolute. But our ability to grasp it is limited. Hence no one has a monopoly on it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Belief in universal truth is likely to remove rights, as it undermines the status of people who do not agree with someone else's view of that "universal truth".


" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

July 4, 1776


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Saying no one has a monopoly on the truth is not saying truth is relative. I don't believe truth is relative. I believe it is absolute. But our ability to grasp it is limited. Hence no one has a monopoly on it.


You said:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> But *everyone has insight into the truth* and no one has a monopoly on it.


Do you think the person who believes allah rewards mass murder with 50 virgins in heaven is onto part of the truth? If you don't think this, on what basis do you think he is wrong, if "everyone has insight into the truth"?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> LOL no, the conclusion is that you and I have different perspectives on the objective ideal.
> 
> But it still exists.


But if it's an objective ideal, you can't both be right, because you both disagree on the ideal.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Saying no one has a monopoly on the truth is not saying truth is relative. I don't believe truth is relative. I believe it is absolute. But our ability to grasp it is limited. Hence no one has a monopoly on it.


I am also not a thorough-going relativist.

I do believe in the existence of an objective physical world. (I'm not sure about this, but it is my current belief, contingent on what I may discover to the contrary in due course.)

However, when it comes to human values and preferences I do not believe in absolute truth - I don't even know what that would mean. I have strong views about ethics, and I believe they are well-founded, but I am well aware that others may have different views, and I cannot say that they are wrong.

Taking the example of musical performance, I hypothesise (for example) that some people enjoy rhythmic variation around a pulse to a greater degree than other people. This may be connected to the wiring of their brains being different. The ideal for one person may involve much variation in tempo, whereas someone else might find that irritating. Neither is right or wrong.

As much as anything, I can't make head nor tail of what this claim of an objective ideal in performance is supposed to add. All it does is poison debate, by providing an implied claim that the other person is wrong, as opposed to just having a different preference.


----------



## JAS

I remember a philosophy class in college where the instructor said that if you believe that things only exist because you think they do, he would be glad to sneak up behind you with a chair and prove you wrong. (No one, of course, was willing to sign the waiver.)


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> As much as anything, I can't make head nor tail of what this claim of an objective ideal in performance is supposed to add. All it does is poison debate, by providing an implied claim that the other person is wrong, as opposed to just having a different preference.


Brahmsianhound uses the term 'objective ideal' to mean something that two people can disagree about, and both still be right.

That is the complete opposite of what 'objective' means. It's what 'subjective' means.

He is either a moron (if he can't see the contradiction) or willfully uncooperative (read: an ***) in his language use (if he can see it).

In short, this thread can't be doing his TalkClassical career any favors. But it's rather amusing to bare witness to the train wreck.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
> 
> July 4, 1776


I am now completely baffled. A range of assertions, contained in a political declaration, is not an argument: it is a list of assertions contained in a declaration. Many people may think that a number of those assertions are admirable, but the Declaration of Independence is not an argument.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But it still exists.


Russell's teapot


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Rogers,

When I say “everyone has insight into the truth,” and you repeat this as “everyone is right,” you are misquoting me. Do you see this? It’s very annoying.

How many times do I have to repeat that everyone has insight into truth but no one has a monopoly?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> I am now completely baffled. A range of assertions, contained in a political declaration, is not an argument: it is a list of assertions contained in a declaration. Many people may think that a number of those assertions are admirable, but the Declaration of Independence is not an argument.


It was a direct response to your statement that universal truth is antithetical to individual rights


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It was a direct response to your statement that universal truth is antithetical to individual rights


It was a response, I grant you. Just not a meaningful one.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How many times do I have to repeat that everyone has insight into truth but no one has a monopoly?


Well, thanks for your confidence, but I don't think that I do when it comes to the objectively true rendering of a piece of music. I haven't even a clue what that means.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Well, thanks for your confidence, but I don't think that I do when it comes to the objectively true rendering of a piece of music. I haven't even a clue what that means.


That makes your opinion even more trustworthy in my book.


----------



## mikeh375

Brahmsianhorn, how do you think your objectively true rendering of music applies to the creation of a work, if at all? Is there also an objectively true version of a piece that a composer strives for during the course of writing it? Just curious to see how you apply your stance to this.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Getting back to the point: I am more than ever convinced that Furtwangler is seen by some of the fascinated as a prophet who experienced some sort of musically divine revelation. In this view, his finest recordings are sacraments to the hidden truth, made at times when he was inspired by the truth. Some of his other recordings are from times when the inspiration wasn't present. And some other conductors were lesser prophets.

It's one of those hermetically sealed belief systems that can sustain itself against any challenge. You can excuse less good performances by F (which occurred when the inspiration was not present) and you can accept other good recordings (from the lesser acolytes who have a lower level of musically divine inspiration).


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How many times do I have to repeat that everyone has insight into truth but no one has a monopoly?


A false statement remains false no matter how many times you repeat it.

People who think the world is round have a monopoly on the truth. People who think the world is flat are demonstrably wrong. People who believe Newton's mechanics have a monopoly on the truth, people who believe in Aristotle's mechanics are demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mikeh375 said:


> Brahmsianhorn, how do you think your objectively true rendering of music applies to the creation of a work, if at all? Is there also an objectively true version of a piece that a composer strives for during the course of writing it? Just curious to see how you apply your stance to this.


Absolutely, which is why the score is never an end in itself. It is a means towards truth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> A false statement remains false no matter how many times you repeat it.
> 
> People who think the world is round have a monopoly on the truth. People who think the world is flat are demonstrably wrong. People who believe Newton's mechanics have a monopoly on the truth, people who believe in Aristotle's mechanics are demonstrably wrong.


You are talking about things that can be objectively proven. That's not what we are discussing here.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Getting back to the point: I am more than ever convinced that Furtwangler is seen by some of the fascinated as a prophet who experienced some sort of musically divine revelation. In this view, his finest recordings are sacraments to the hidden truth, made at times when he was inspired by the truth. Some of his other recordings are from times when the inspiration wasn't present. And some other conductors were lesser prophets.
> 
> It's one of those hermetically sealed belief systems that can sustain itself against any challenge. You can excuse less good performances by F (which occurred when the inspiration was not present) and you can accept other good recordings (from the lesser acolytes who have a lower level of musically divine inspiration).


No.

As I said before, I knew these works well before I came across Furtwängler. His versions simply hit the mark for me more times than not. No different than anyone else's preferred versions of their favorite works.

The parallel between Furtwängler and this discussion is not in his results but in his approach, his philosophy. It is essentially a liberating philosophy which ALLOWS us to get closer to truth.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No.
> 
> His versions simply hit the mark for me more times than not. No different than anyone else's preferred versions of their favorite works.
> 
> The parallel between Furtwängler and this discussion is not in his results but in his approach, his philosophy. It is essentially a liberating philosophy which ALLOWS us to get closer to truth.


No problem at all with the first of the two paragraphs quoted above. I am pleased you found performances which mean so much to you.

I don't know anything in particular about F's philosophy, but I am pretty sure that in order to make the claim that it allows us to get closer to truth we would need to provide some justification for why truth is a relevant word in this context.

I can't see that truth is the right word, because truth applies to propositions. Effectively a claim needs to be made (such as 2+2 = 4 or E = m*c_squared) and then that needs to be checked somehow (for 2+2=4 it would be within the formalised reasoning process of a mathematical system and for E = m*c_squared it would be by seeking to falsify it by experiment).

I don't understand how one can view a performance of a piece of music as a proposition making a claim of any sort, and therefore I don't see how it can have a truth value.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Because Furtwängler sees the score as a living document


----------



## Beethoven14

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't understand how one can view a performance of a piece of music as a proposition making a claim of any sort, and therefore I don't see how it can have a truth value.


Plato > Tarski + Wittgenstein + Kripke


----------



## Eclectic Al

Beethoven14 said:


> Plato > Tarski + Wittgenstein + Kripke


I'm sure you're correct that Plato is hovering in the background. (Not sure about your inequality though.)

I assume BH is suggesting is that there is an "objectively ideal rendering" of a piece of music, and then using the word "true" to mean that a performance matches that ideal. Plato's forms are clearly the model.

I understand how a circle (say) can be defined as a form, and we can then test real world artefacts against the form of a circle to measure how close to being circular they are. It's not that I like a circle or regard it as my ideal shape in any sense: it's just an idealised concept which we can define.

However, with musical performance I don't know how you define the ideal in the first place. The ideal performance is always (I think) going to be subjective, and bring in preferences, whereas the form of circle can be defined objectively and is not a matter of preference. I can test a performance against my ideal and find it a bad match, and you can test it against your ideal and find it a good match. I don't see how these ideals can be objective, unless you try and go down the "follow the score" road, and that is the road that BH particularly seeks not to travel.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

For the last freaking time, the ideal truth CANNOT be defined. It can only be imagined in the abstract and approached in reality. You and I can have different conceptions of it, and there is no way to prove who is closer.

It seems as though you insist on twisting my meaning in order to “win” an argument.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> For the last freaking time, the ideal truth CANNOT be defined. It can only be imagined in the abstract and approached in reality. You and I can have different conceptions of it, and there is no way to prove who is closer.
> 
> It seems as though you insist on twisting my meaning in order to "win" an argument.


What role does this undefinable ideal truth play in you or I deciding which performance we prefer? It seems it is something we imagine, and we are able to imagine different ones.

If I could articulate my ideal to you, and you could articulate your ideal to me, then we could check a performance against our ideals. Fine. That might indicate why I prefer one performance and you prefer another. But where does the objective ideal truth come in? It seems to serve no purpose. We are just left with my opinion and your opinion, and no way of bringing the objective ideal into the situation at all.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because Furtwängler sees the score as a living document


So does everyone else btw


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> So does everyone else btw


Toscanini? Reiner?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Toscanini? Reiner?


Of course they did


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It seems as though you insist on twisting my meaning in order to "win" an argument.


Nope, that's not it. I don't think you are taking seriously my concern (expressed in a few earlier posts) that the form of this argument is a dangerous one, as it applies equally (if not more) readily to political and religious matters. When I expressed that concern I was being honest and open. You are entitled to disagree with it (- indeed the fact that you are entitled to do so is precisely my point), but it is not a debating game to win an argument.

I do believe that the atrocities of the 20th century are profoundly connected to ideas of objective idealism (and in particular the pursuit of utopias - which is the pursuit of objective truth in a political context).


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Objective idealism? So is everything in the world subjective? Are there no facts? Art is one thing - by its nature subjective - but much about the world is predictable and known. I feel we would be better protected from the evils of totalitarianism if we acknowledged that instead of swallowing any fiction that a would be despot might throw at us. You can argue that we only have theories rather than facts but many of our theories are extremely reliable. Of course, there are also values, and values _are _subjective. But we would be safer if they were treated openly as values rather than mixing them up with claims for the validity of things that are patently and demonstrably untrue. We need to concept of truth and knowledge about what we can know and how we can know it to avoid this. I'm not sure if I am agreeing with you or not!

Where Furtwangler - a great artist but political naif - comes into this I don't know.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Objective idealism? So is everything in the world subjective? Are there no facts? Art is one thing - by its nature subjective - but much about the world is predictable and known. I feel we would be better protected from the evils of totalitarianism if we acknowledged that instead of swallowing any fiction that a would be despot might throw at us. You can argue that we only have theories rather than facts but many of our theories are extremely reliable. Of course, there are also values, and values _are _subjective. But we would be safer if they were treated openly as values rather than mixing them up with claims for the validity of things that are patently and demonstrably untrue. We need to concept of truth and knowledge about what we can know and how we can know it to avoid this. I'm not sure if I am agreeing with you or not!
> 
> Where Furtwangler - a great artist but political naif - comes into this I don't know.


I think I agree with you entirely. In this rather long thread there have been longer and shorter articulations of people's positions. I think a longer articulation of my position than the one you are commenting on is pretty well exactly the same as what you are saying.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Thanks for forgiving me the obligation to go through the entire thread!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Nope, that's not it. I don't think you are taking seriously my concern (expressed in a few earlier posts) that the form of this argument is a dangerous one, as it applies equally (if not more) readily to political and religious matters. When I expressed that concern I was being honest and open. You are entitled to disagree with it (- indeed the fact that you are entitled to do so is precisely my point), but it is not a debating game to win an argument.
> 
> I do believe that the atrocities of the 20th century are profoundly connected to ideas of objective idealism (and in particular the pursuit of utopias - which is the pursuit of objective truth in a political context).


Bullcrap! What I am arguing for is essentially what democracy is, not utopian society, which forces ONE belief system upon everyone else. Stop twisting my words!!!!!

What you are essentially arguing for is anarchy, where there is no truth at all. My argument is that it exists but we can never reach it and NO ONE has a monopoly over it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Bullcrap! What I am arguing for is essentially what democracy is, not utopian society, which forces ONE belief system upon everyone else. Stop twisting my words!!!!!
> 
> What you are essentially arguing for is anarchy, where there is no truth at all. My argument is that it exists but we can never reach it and NO ONE has a monopoly over it.


Nope. If it exists and no one claims privileged access to it, then what is it? What does it deliver? What is its role?

On the other hand, if it exists and people do claim privileged access to it, then what does it do but denigrate the beliefs of others.

My feeling is that you should acknowledge that matters such as preference for musical performances are inherently subjective. There is no more than the subjective in that field. (But to my mind what could be more than that: we are all individuals and all precious precisely because we differ, and it diminishes us all to say that there is a singular, uniform ideal which is beyond us. What a sad concept. What a loss of precious variety and insight. Sorry, I became a bit too honest there about what matters to me. I am English and characteristically we hide what we most value. Well, I failed just then.)


----------



## DavidA

Democracy - the worst sort of government apart from every other system that has been tried. I believe Churchill said that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Nope. If it exists and no one claims privileged access to it, then what is it? What does it deliver? What is its role?
> 
> On the other hand, if it exists and people do claim privileged access to it, then what does it do but denigrate the beliefs of others.
> 
> My feeling is that you should acknowledge that matters such as preference for musical performances are inherently subjective. There is no more than the subjective. (But to my mind what could be more than that: we are all individuals and all precious precisely because we differ, and it diminishes us all to say that there is a singular, uniform ideal which is beyond us. What a sad concept. What a loss of precious variety and insight. Sorry, I became a bit too honest there about what matters to me. I am English and characteristically we hide what we most value. Well, I failed just then.)


There is NOTHING in what I am saying that goes against the concept of variety. To the contrary, I am saying that each person's version of the truth is valid. What I am against is the concept of pure subjectivity where there is no meaning to anything. I believe people are subjectively striving for what they see as true, what connects, what has meaning.

Please do not persist in distorting my words. I am trying to ask this as kindly as I can.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I believe people are subjectively striving for what they see as true, what connects, what has meaning.


I absolutely agree,


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is NOTHING in what I am saying that goes against the concept of variety. To the contrary, I am saying that each person's version of the truth is valid. What I am against is the concept of pure subjectivity where there is no meaning to anything. I believe people are subjectively striving for* what they see as true*, what connects, what has meaning.
> 
> Please do not persist in distorting my words. I am trying to ask this as kindly as I can.


This is how I feel it is - people perceive the musical truth (which we have still not defined! (?)) differently. I don't think we should compare it to religious or philosophical truth and the existence of the two latter doesn't prove the existence of the truth in music. If we nevertheless assumed that such existed, I think it would be very difficult to prove that it's objective.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is NOTHING in what I am saying that goes against the concept of variety. To the contrary, *I am saying that each person's version of the truth is valid*. What I am against is the concept of pure subjectivity where there is no meaning to anything. I believe people are subjectively striving for what they see as true, what connects, what has meaning.
> 
> Please do not persist in distorting my words. I am trying to ask this as kindly as I can.


Of course each person's version of 'the truth' is not valid! Do you honestly think that the versions of government proposed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao were valid? Ot the mass slaughters inflicted by Ghengis Khan were valid? Do you think that the Inquisition was a valid expression of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth? For goodness sake, this is where we get a caucus race where everyone wins and everyone gets prizes. Not everything is equally valid if we are going to maintain a liberal democracy.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What I am against is the concept of pure subjectivity where there is no meaning to anything.


I agree. There is (within my belief system) an objective physical world, and we live within it. I also believe that you cannot just choose your own ethical framework and expect others to believe it to be equally valid to other frameworks. In most respects I am a Kantian.

I think that our only disagreement may be (do you like that? :lol that I doubt that there is an objective ideal in relation to matters of artistic judgement and you appear to think there is. (I have my concerns about applying the same arguments to other fields such as politics, but you may choose to ignore my squeamishness.) Can we leave it at that? (I have no problem with that, as I positively want others to disagree with me about value-laden or artistic matters, as otherwise I believe the world is diminished.)


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> This is how I feel it is - people perceive the musical truth (which we have still not defined! (?)) differently. I don't think we should compare it to religious or philosophical truth and the existence of the two latter doesn't prove the existence of the truth in music. If we nevertheless assumed that such existed, I think it would be very difficult to prove that it's objective.


Agree. Hence, drop the word "truth" when it comes to musical performance. It is just unhelpful.


----------



## Eclectic Al

By the way, BH. I admire your tenacity, if not your position.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> 1. An account of what 'objective truth', in the case of music, _actually is_, plus
> 2. An account of how, when we encounter a performance approaching objective musical truth, we can be _justified in judging_ this performance to be approaching objective musical truth, as opposed to being nowhere near it.


Both these questions would probably require a book for me to answer satisfactorily. However, I don't feel I need to, because I was merely pointing out how you made a logical fallacy in arguing that someone could not simultaneously hold the position that something is unknowable and that different things come, to various degrees, closer and farther away from it. I never (at least in the referenced post) actually argued that objective truth in music exist or stated that it is possible to establish it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

BachIsBest said:


> Both these questions would probably require a book for me to answer satisfactorily. However, I don't feel I need to, because I was merely pointing out how you made a logical fallacy in arguing that someone could not simultaneously hold the position that something is unknowable and that different things come, to various degrees, closer and farther away from it. I never (at least in the referenced post) actually argued that objective truth in music exist or stated that it is possible to establish it.


One of my problems is that I am a mathematician. Mathematicians are interested in closed and open sets. Take the sequence of numbers starting at 1, with each successive number being half of the previous one. If you are talking about positive numbers then the ultimate end of that sequence is non-existent; if you are talking about non-negative numbers then it exists, the limit of the sequence being zero. I therefore must agree with BachIsBest that you can be closer or further away from something whether or not it exists. However, I think I must agree with both BachIsBest and Roger Waters that this is not meaningful in our discussion if we can't in the first place make sense of what we are measuring distance from. :devil:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Of course each person's version of 'the truth' is not valid! Do you honestly think that the versions of government proposed by Hitler, Stalin and Mao were valid? Ot the mass slaughters inflicted by Ghengis Khan were valid? Do you think that the Inquisition was a valid expression of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth? For goodness sake, this is where we get a caucus race where everyone wins and everyone gets prizes. Not everything is equally valid if we are going to maintain a liberal democracy.


Let me rephrase. Not equal validity.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let me rephrase. Not equal validity.


The closest I can come to a universal rule is "do as you would be done by", one form of the Golden Rule. You find this in so many systems of thought, religious or otherwise. My favourite, Kant, expressed it as his categorical imperative, but others had different formulations. Jesus expressed it as "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you." Kant's version (more philosophical as you would expect) relates to the unversifiability of a rule. Eastern systems have comparable statements. All these formulations relate to the acceptance that I am no more special than you are.

It is for this reason that I am persisting in this thread. The soundest basis of ethics (IMO) is that I cannot claim a special status for my position. My concern about the idea of a universal truth is that it can be used to go against this. This is because if I claim a universal truth exists but no one has any idea what it is then it is pointless, but on the other hand if some claim to have insight into it then it goes against the golden rule, and I see that as the first step on the road to the gas chambers.

My one universal ethical principle is that I cannot claim to be any more special than anyone else. I don't really want to move away from that. I might be wrong, of course.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> The closest I can come to a universal rule is "do as you would be done by", one form of the Golden Rule. You find this in so many systems of thought, religious or otherwise. My favourite, Kant, expressed it as his categorical imperative, but others had different formulations. Jesus expressed it as "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you." Kant's version (more philosophical as you would expect) relates to the unversifiability of a rule. Eastern systems have comparable statements. All these formulations relate to the acceptance that I am no more special than you are.
> 
> It is for this reason that I am persisting in this thread. The soundest basis of ethics (IMO) is that I cannot claim a special status for my position. My concern about the idea of a universal truth is that it can be used to go against this. This is because if I claim a universal truth exists but no one has any idea what it is then it is pointless, but on the other hand if some claim to have insight into it then it goes against the golden rule, and I see that as the first step on the road to the gas chambers.
> 
> My one universal ethical principle is that I cannot claim to be any more special than anyone else. I don't really want to move away from that. I might be wrong, of course.


You are confusing ethical truth with truth of the physical world. People also confuse truth of statement with the idea of truth that the statement can be mapped to verifiable physical condition.

Kantian ethics are extremely import but also insufficient because it does not reconcile with the consequentists' view on ethics (they can be reconciled in the modern approach, which is game-theoretical). To claim that universality exists and we should follow moral codes unconditionally also requires rationalist constructs that are metaphysical in nature.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is NOTHING in what I am saying that goes against the concept of variety. To the contrary, I am saying that each person's version of the truth is valid. What I am against is the concept of pure subjectivity where there is no meaning to anything. I believe people are subjectively striving for what they see as true, what connects, what has meaning.
> 
> Please do not persist in distorting my words. I am trying to ask this as kindly as I can.


For the millionth time, no one is distorting your words. Your words are self contradictory. The puzzling thing is that you have basically nothing of substance to say about Furtwangler.


----------



## Cortot

For example I don't like Furtwangler's Beethoven (I prefer Mengelberg, Bruno Walter or Hermann Abenderoth etc.), very waxing, Wagnerian and slow for Beethoven but his Wagner is unique and greatest. Also Schumann, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Weber, Hugo Wolf (on piano) great, one of the best choices for romantic composers.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You are confusing ethical truth with truth of the physical world. People also confuse truth of statement with the idea of truth that the statement can be mapped to verifiable physical condition.
> 
> Kantian ethics are extremely import but also insufficient because it does not reconcile with the consequentists' view on ethics (they can be reconciled in the modern approach, which is game-theoretical). To claim that universality exists and we should follow moral codes unconditionally also requires rationalist constructs that are metaphysical in nature.


Well I might be, but I don't think so. Anyway, I suspect we'll be going even further away from Furtwangler if we get into consequentialists, etc. Perhaps I have no wish to reconcile with them.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Cortot said:


> For example I don't like Furtwangler's Beethoven (I prefer Mengelberg, Bruno Walter or Hermann Abenderoth etc.), very waxing, Wagnerian and slow for Beethoven but his Wagner is unique and greatest. Also Schumann, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Weber, Hugo Wolf (on piano) great, one of the best choices for romantic composers.


The thing with Furtwangler is that "inconsistency" is inevitable because he always take so much risk, he is similar to Cortot in that respect. But when he delivers, boy, no other conductor come close to pull off what he achieves during some of the WW2 recordings.

One example is that 1945 recording of Brahms 1 last movement (the rest are missing), intoxicating and ecstatic, the rubati were so hysterical and every orchestra member played their hearts out, yet the shape of the music is wholly intact. There is freedom for everyone in his music making, unlike the tyrants and taskmasters. Isn't that what musicians look for in art, emancipation and freedom? How did he do it? It's simply wizardry.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Well I might be, but I don't think so. Anyway, I suspect we'll be going even further away from Furtwangler if we get into consequentialists, etc. Perhaps I have no wish to reconcile with them.


The lesson from the modern approach to political thought and ethics is that you can't possible tell whether golden rule is better than the silver rule, or whether Confucius's inversion of the golden rule is better than the golden rule, or what kind of institutional arrangement will emerge out of each rule, or each distribution of individuals who possesses these rules, unless you partly resort to Consequentialists' logic, which assigns values to social states that emerges from these rule. Otherwise, you have to resort to God or metaphysical first principles and that again, paves the way to the gas chambers.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn, again, either you are not very bright, or your honesty and credibility levels are extremely low:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Rogers,
> 
> When I say "everyone has insight into the truth," and you repeat this as "everyone is right," you are misquoting me. Do you see this? It's very annoying.


But then....



Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is NOTHING in what I am saying that goes against the concept of variety. To the contrary, I am saying that each person's version of the truth is valid.


How can '*each *person's version of the truth be valid' while 'not everyone is right'?!


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I was merely pointing out how you made a logical fallacy in arguing that someone could not simultaneously hold the position that something is unknowable and that different things come, to various degrees, closer and farther away from it


If I told you I don't know exactly where the library is, but then told you it can't be that way because that's where the ocean is, I _do_ know where it is - to some significant degree. I know that it's on land.

If Brahmsianhorn is saying Furtwangler is generally closer to 'musical truth' (!), then he must know _enough_ about musical truth to proffer such a (rediculous) claim just as I must know _enough_ about the location of the library to proffer the claim it's not in the ocean.

So you are not relieving him of either:

1. A pompous commitment that he knows more about objective musical truth than people he disagrees with, or
2. His uncooperative use of 'objective musical truth' to mean subjective musical preferemce.



BachIsBest said:


> Both these questions would probably require a book for me to answer satisfactorily.


Hardly. I gave you quick and dirty examples from _both _empirical science and mathematics in one relatively short post.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> So you are not relieving him of either:
> 
> 1. A pompous commitment that he knows more about objective musical truth than people he disagrees with, or
> 2. His uncooperative use of 'objective musical truth' to mean subjective musical preferemce.


I really don't want to be mean and say things that will get me thrown off the board. But suffice it to say you are mixing incredibly poor reading comprehension with horrifically flawed logic and not to mention poor manners.

Stop harassing me. I'm only going to ask you one more time. I've defended myself against every single erroneous point you raise and I'm not going to do it again.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I really don't want to be mean and say things that will get me thrown off the board. But suffice it to say you are mixing incredibly poor reading comprehension with horrifically flawed logic and not to mention poor manners.
> 
> Stop harassing me. I'm only going to ask you one more time. I've defended myself against every single erroneous point you raise and I'm not going to do it again.


If I'm misrepresenting you, then I would like to be corrected. I'm honestly not trying to twist your words in any way I can to find contradictions where they don't exist. Rather, they are leaping out at me. But of course this _could_ be more of a reflection on me than you.

In that case, let's check. This is how I understand your whole position:

1. You believe your musical preferences approach objective musical truth
2. This has the potential consequence that those who disagree with you are objectively wrong (which you rightly acknowledged is rediculous)
3. You avoid the need to make such awkward judgements of your peers via claiming that two people can disagree about objective musical truth yet both have some kind of claim on objective musical truth

Is this your position?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

rogerwaters said:


> if i'm misrepresenting you, then i would like to be corrected. I'm honestly not trying to twist your words in any way i can to find contradictions where they don't exist. Rather, they are leaping out at me. This is how i understand your whole position:





rogerwaters said:


> 1. You believe your musical preferences approach objective musical truth


no i did not. I said a musical performance aims at an objective ideal which we can only use our subjective minds to either create as a musician or appreciate as a listener. There is nothing inherently more special about my opinion vs anyone else. We all approach matters of abstract truth differently.



rogerwaters said:


> 2. This has the potential consequence that those who disagree with you are objectively wrong (which you ave rightly acknowledged as rediculous)


only an idiot with no logical skills would make this conclusion. Both sides of the disagreement are subjective. The only thing that is objective in the abstract is ultimate truth which no one can obtain by definition.



rogerwaters said:


> 3. You get around the need to make such awkward judgements of your peers via the claim that two people can disagree about objective musical truth and both have some kind of claim on objective musical truth


because no one has a monopoly on the truth as i've said a million times.

Now, stop harassing me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JAS

Explain Fascination with this Thread . . .


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. You believe your musical preferences approach objective musical truth
> 
> no i did not. I said a musical performance aims at an objective ideal which we can only use our subjective minds to either create as a musician or appreciate as a listener. There is nothing inherently more special about my opinion vs anyone else. We all approach matters of abstract truth differently.


I really _am_ confused, then. I thought you like Furtwangler because you believe his interpretations of music get closer to the objective truth of the music than other composers!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> I really _am_ confused, then. I thought you like Furtwangler because you believe his interpretations of music get closer to the objective truth of the music than other composers!


I said that is the basis of preference. It doesn't make my preference any better than anyone else's. I've said this a million damned times. I asked you nicely to stop harassing me. STOP!!!!!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said that is the basis of preference. It doesn't make my preference any better than anyone else's. I've said this a million damned times. Are you really this stupid? I asked you nicely to stop harassing me. STOP!!!!!


Ok so you _do_ hold this opinion. Why did you say a moment ago that you _don't_?

This is the basis for my opinion that you slip and slide so as not to be held accountable for your words.

You hold that, in your opinion, Furtwangler approaches objective musical truth in many of his performances while composers like Solti, Reiner, etc are further from the objective musical truth. This then leads to 2 and 3:

2. This has the potential consequence that those who disagree with you are objectively wrong (which you rightly acknowledged is rediculous)
3. You avoid the need to make such awkward judgements of your peers via claiming that two people can disagree about objective musical truth yet both have some kind of claim on objective musical truth


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Ok so you _do_ hold this opinion. Why did you say a moment ago that you _don't_?
> 
> This is the basis for my opinion that you slip and slide so as not to be held accountable for your words.


Bullcrap! I denied saying that my musical preferences are superior to others. It's only slip and slide if you are an idiot.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Bullcrap! I denied saying that my musical preferences are superior to others. It's only slip and slide if you are an idiot.


No no you're jumping ahead. I'm just interesting in the claim, (for now), that you have clearly endorsed, that you believe F was closer to the objective musical truth than Solti, Reiner, Toscanini, etc. Right? Work with me here!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Ok so you _do_ hold this opinion. Why did you say a moment ago that you _don't_?
> 
> This is the basis for my opinion that you slip and slide so as not to be held accountable for your words.
> 
> You hold that, in your opinion, Furtwangler approaches objective musical truth in many of his performances while composers like Solti, Reiner, etc are further from the objective musical truth. This then leads to 2 and 3:
> 
> 2. This has the potential consequence that those who disagree with you are objectively wrong (which you rightly acknowledged is rediculous)
> 3. You avoid the need to make such awkward judgements of your peers via claiming that two people can disagree about objective musical truth yet both have some kind of claim on objective musical truth


If #1 is my opinion, how can #2 then follow that people who disagree are objectively wrong?

If in this silly scenario you've constructed, my truth equals Furtwängler and someone else's truth equals Solti, how can anyone of us be objectively wrong? This is the hole in your logic you cannot get around. We simply each have our opinion. Neither of us knows for a fact that we are right.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If #1 is my opinion, how can #2 then follow that people who disagree are objectively wrong?


OK great, we're getting somewhere just now. Let's work carefully together to work things out.

If joe and jane disagree about something objective, and if joe is closer to the objective truth than jane, then jane must be objective wrong - or further from the objective truth than joe, ageed? By extension, supporters of jane must be further from the objective truth than supporters of joe. right?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> OK great, we're getting somewhere just now. Let's work carefully together to work things out.
> 
> If joe and jane disagree about something objective, and if joe is closer to the objective truth than jane, then jane must be objective wrong - or further from the objective truth than joe, ageed? By extension, supporters of jane must be further from the objective truth than supporters of joe. right?


NOOOOO!!!!!

There is no way to know whether Joe or Jane, or their supporters, are right or wrong. It's all opinion.


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> Explain Fascination with this Thread . . .


It's mysterious. I didn't realize Furtwängler was such a hot topic, even on a classical music forum.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> NOOOOO!!!!!
> 
> There is no way to know whether Joe or Jane, or their supporters, are right or wrong. It's all opinion.


This is where the debate is breaking down. You use the concept of 'objective truth' to mean subjective 'truth'.

Two people can't disagree about objective truth without one being wrong. That's the meaning of objective truth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Two people can't disagree about objective truth without one being wrong. That's the meaning of objective truth.


NOOOO! It's all OPINION about something objective, which we can never fully know or understand. The opinion itself is not a form of objective truth.

I could have an opinion today about truth and change my mind tomorrow. The truth itself never changes.

Furtwängler might think that Beethoven's 5th should sound one way today and change his mind tomorrow.

"I know that I know nothing." - Socrates


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> NOOOO! It's all OPINION about something objective, which we can never fully know or understand. The opinion itself is not a form of objective truth.


All opinions are 'subjective' in the sense they are the mental states of particular subjects. It's what their opinions are about that matters.

There are opinions _about _objective matters (what 1+1 equals) and there are opinions _about _subjective matters (i.e. fashion). Two people can have conflicting opinions about what clothing style is best and both be 'right', because their opinions are _about_ something subjective, but they can't have conflicting opinions about what 1+1 equals and both be right, because here their opinions are _about_ something objective. Correct?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> All opinions are 'subjective' in the sense they are the mental states of particular subjects. But there are opinions about objective matters (what 1+1 equals) and there are opinions about subjective matters (i.e. fashion). Two people can have conflicting opinions about what clothing style is best and both be 'right', because their opinions are _about_ something subjective, but they can't have conflicting opinions about what 1+1 equals and both be right, because here their opinions are _about_ something objective. Correct?


But opinions are not fixed things. You may stumble across truth today and forget it tomorrow. The only objective truth is that which lies beyond our grasp.

I change my mind about Furtwängler being closer to musical truth in Beethoven. I now believe Skrowaczewski is the closest. Which me is right?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But opinions are not fixed things. You may stumble across truth today and forget it tomorrow. =


That's fine. Just bare with me. Of course opinions can change, but some opinions are about facts that don't change (what 1+1 equals) and some opinions are about facts which do change (fashion). Right?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> That's fine. Just bare with me. Of course opinions can change, but some opinions are about facts that don't change (what 1+1 equals) and some opinions are about facts which do change (fashion). Right?


What we're talking about falls into neither of those categories (simple scientific fact or personal fashion). Look, I'm done. Keep talking but I'm done.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What we're talking about falls into neither of those categories (simple scientific fact or personal fashion).


Of course. But according to you what we're talking about falls into the category of 'objective' as opposed to 'subjective', right? Opinions about musical performance are opinions about objective matters, according to you...

If so, then it follows, quite simply, that if two people disagree about musical performance, one must be wrong/further from the truth This is because of the meaning of 'objective'.

You can't have it both ways. You can't hold that opinions about musical performance are opinions about objective matters of fact, while at the same holding that disagreement about musical performance doesn't entail one side being right/closer to the truth and the other wrong/further form the truth. The meaning of 'objective' simply does not allow this...

You really don't see this? This is what gives rise to the belief that you are either illogical or willfully uncooperative in your idiosyncratic use of terms like 'objective'...

And the fact that you've bailed out of the discussion just when I've managed to get you onside and have been carefully reconstructing your position only adds to my suspicion, and I'm sure the suspicion of many other readers, that you aren't too virtuous when it comes to debate. It's almost a form of selfish individualism to lob grand claims into a debate (such as that musical opinion is opinion about objective matters) and then run away when people attempt to vet your position according to shared rules of logic, meaning and truth that make discussion and community possible in the first place. You want to hold your unique little opinion, and be known for holding it among your peers, but when your peers attempt to point out to you that your opinion is obviously unreasonable, you lash out, slip and slide like a fish, or run away.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

You’re repeating yourself and going in circles. I’ve already answered all your points. You have nothing new to add. I’m not running away. I have better things to do than simply repeat myself!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm not running away.


OK great, so why don't you agree that, if some musical performances get closer to the objective musical truth than others (which you believe), this necessarily commits you - as a matter of the meaning of the term 'objective' - to the further claim that some performances will be closer to the truth and some further from the truth, and, thus, that those championing the latter will be further from the truth than those championing the former?

The (trivially true) idea that all these beliefs are _beliefs_ of subjective agents doesn't have any ramifications, because the beliefs are _about objective matters_ (according to you)!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> OK great, so why don't you agree that, if some musical performances get closer to the objective musical truth than others (which you believe), this necessarily commits you - as a matter of the meaning of the term 'objective' - to the further claim that some performances will be closer to the truth and some further from the truth, and, thus, that those championing the latter will be further from the truth than those championing the former?


No! That is not the logical conclusion. One does not follow from the other. No offense, but your skills of deduction are extremely poor.

Have you heard Skrowaczewski's Beethoven? He's my new favorite. The old Furtwängler-loving me was soooo wrong. The new me is soooo right.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No! That is not the logical conclusion. One does not follow from the other. No offense, but your skills of deduction are extremely poor.


Just so we're clear. You do NOT think that, if Joe and Jane disagree about something objective, at least one must be wrong or further from the truth?!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

The subject-object dualism presupposes the transcendental self - cogito.

Listening to music falls somewhere in between the subjective and objective experience, because music only exist in the flow of consciousness (interferes with subjectivity), but music is also produced outside the Cartesian theatre (as an object).

Music performances are reproduction of some "ideal music" which has a physical representation on the score. Therefore musical truth is a convenient concept for filling the gap between the imperfect representation of music, the score, and the "ideal music" that is to be reproduced.

Even though different people have different "ideal music" but they also exhibit similarities and patterns which suggests that there is some musical truth that dictates interpretations that is not subjective. But since "ideal music" only exist in the flow of consciousness of the musician, such truth cannot be objective either, this is simlar to the impossibility of writing down closed form mathematics to describe complex dynamics of the brain. We can only understand consciousness from within, not by dissecting the brain, because there is nothing there. Understanding music truth is a similar process.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Just so we're clear. You do NOT think that, if Joe and Jane disagree about something objective, at least one must be wrong or further from the truth?!


The problem is you are trying to assign absolutes to opinions. The only absolute is the ultimate truth, which neither can attain.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem is you are trying to assign absolutes to opinions. The only absolute is the ultimate truth, which neither can attain.


I'm just trying to work out why you are disagreeing with nearly everyone in this discussion. Do you or do you not think that joe and jane can disagree about something objective and both be right?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Just so we're clear. You do NOT think that, if Joe and Jane disagree about something objective, at least one must be wrong or further from the truth?!


Not necessarily, not if Joe and Jane have different sets of first principles, they can be both right.

Famous example:
Newton: light is particle not wave
Thomas Young: light is wave not particle
They are both right in the sense that it ultimately depends on how you look at it.

Music is similar in the sense that the " ideal music" (e.g. Grosse Fuge) must be filtered through the lens of the interpreter to take form. Different lens, different forms but both can be valid and both can be invalid (if a garbled Grosse Fuge is played).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> I'm just trying to work out why you are disagreeing with nearly everyone in this discussion. Do you or do you not think that joe and jane can disagree about something objective and both be right?


I answered you!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I answered you!


You didn't say yes or no... you were again being a slippery fish!

Do you or do you not think that joe and jane can disagree about something objective and both be right?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> You didn't say yes or no... you were again being a slippery fish!
> 
> Do you or do you not think that joe and jane can disagree about something objective and both be right?


There is no yes or no to that question!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is no yes or no to that question!


This seems to be a yes or no question to me. The answer (no) would seem to me to stem directly from the meaning of 'objective': in the same way the answer (no) to the question 'are bachelors unmarried women?' stems from the meaning of 'bachelor'.

I suggest we all call you Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use the word 'objective'," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said RogerWaters, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Yes, that's splendid! You _are_ Humpty from now on in.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I already explained it three answers ago! You cannot assign absolute labels to subjective opinions. Only the abstract objective truth is absolute.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I already explained it three answers ago! You cannot assign absolute labels to subjective opinions. Only the abstract objective truth is absolute.


But... what?! I thought we had _agreed_ that you think our opinions _about_ musical performance are opinions _about_ objective matters!!

I mean, you say it outright here! I'll repeat it so everyone can see how much of a cad you're being:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> My preference for Furtwängler is based on my subjective belief that he comes the closest to reaching the objective truth.


I have said about three times so far, just because all opinions are necessarily held by subjects does not make all opinions subjective. There are opinions about subjective matters and there are opinions about objective matters - as you would clearly understand so stop being a cad.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> If I told you I don't know exactly where the library is, but then told you it can't be that way because that's where the ocean is, I _do_ know where it is - to some significant degree. I know that it's on land.
> 
> If Brahmsianhorn is saying Furtwangler is generally closer to 'musical truth' (!), then he must know _enough_ about musical truth to proffer such a (rediculous) claim just as I must know _enough_ about the location of the library to proffer the claim it's not in the ocean.
> 
> So you are not relieving him of either:
> 
> 1. A pompous commitment that he knows more about objective musical truth than people he disagrees with, or
> 2. His uncooperative use of 'objective musical truth' to mean subjective musical preferemce.


I'm not sure who's point your arguing for with the library example. I don't wish to presume too much of Brahmsianhorns position but I can confidently say a performance of Beethoven's fifth is not uncovering 'the truth' of Beethoven's ninth.

1. He clearly never said that to the degree you seem to be implicating him in his post.
2. I think this is probably a vast oversimplification of his position but you'd have to ask him. We're not in cahoots.



RogerWaters said:


> Hardly. I gave you quick and dirty examples from _both _empirical science and mathematics in one relatively short post.


Note the answer _satisfactorily_ part. If I just wanted to write down some crap I could do it in a short forum post but I seriously don't think I could properly articulate my thoughts on objective truth in music in a short forum post. I remember your math example as being silly and over-simplified; I could just define two to be three and vice-versa leaving the rest of mathematics unchanged. Regardless, it was never the point of the thread and your the only one who seemed to bring it up.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure who's point your arguing for with the library example.


I was using the library example as an example of the kind of thing you seemed to be arguing for - that, despite lacking knowledge of something, you can nevertheless judge proximity to truth.

But I don't think it shows what you think it does. In the example I don't lack knowledge of where the library is at all. I just lack knowledge of where, exactly, it is. It's only because I _do_ have knowledge of where it is (course-grained knowledge, admittedly) that I can justifiably say it's not in the ocean (despite not knowing exactly where it is).

So I remain to be convinced of Humpty Dumpty's claim that you can lack knowledge of musical truth while also being justified in judging whether a performance is closer or further from it.



BachIsBest said:


> I could just define two to be three and vice-versa leaving the rest of mathematics unchanged


Then you wouldn't be expressing an incorrect proposition, you'd be expressing a correct one using symbols with modified meaning (in the same way you could express the same proposition in roman numerals). Nice try, though. And what a cop out your closing remarks are, and somewhat caddish: "I remember your maths example as being silly and over-simplified". Foooormidable!


----------



## aioriacont

you guys are all from the Baby Boomers' generation, right?
You love to fight so much hahaha
that's so pathetic. 
Well, we see a lot of baby boomers everyday being rude to humble workers yelling "I want to see the manager!", so it makes sense...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Good grief, you keep referring to the opinions and even the opinionators themselves as either right or wrong. They’re not. They can’t be. They are simply ATTEMPTS to explain truth. They are not the truth themselves. They never can be.

Even the musical scores are attempts to reach truth, not truths themselves. Why do you think they often underwent so many revisions?


----------



## RogerWaters

aioriacont said:


> you guys are all from the Baby Boomers' generation, right?


No. Thanks for your confidence in being utterly mistaken, however.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good grief, you keep referring to the opinions and even the opinionators themselves as either right or wrong. They're not. They can't be.


LOL.

Now Humpty Dumpty thinks people's opinions/beliefs can't be right or wrong. You really are a curious specimen, Humpty. How much of English usage are you planning to re-write just so you (think you) don't look like a buffoon?

"Good grief!"

Anyway, I think you've sunk low enough that we can stop this otherwise pointless charade.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let me rephrase. Not equal validity.


What difference does that make?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> What difference does that make?


Every person has the capacity to see truth. Some see it more clearly. Some do not. Some are deranged. Some have no time for truth as they only want to selfishly have their way.


----------



## Guest

Fascinating. I missed the beginning of this discussion (and am not going back over 69 pages) but in checking what set it all off...



Becca said:


> I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why should any topic on this forum be a firestorm? We're just expressing opinions about a fun subject.


Probably better not to try and join in now. If anyone wants me, I'm in the library.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Every person has the capacity to see truth*. Some see it more clearly*. Some do not. Some are deranged. Some have no time for truth as they only want to selfishly have their way.


Ah so you are obviously one of those who sees it more clearly than the rest of us? :lol:


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> Ah so you are obviously one of those who sees it more clearly than the rest of us? :lol:


The man is a practical buffoon! Only futility lies in trying to come to terms with his idiosyncratic, half-baked ruminations on Truth and Knowledge and Meaning. I shouldn't be surprised if there is a personality disorder, knocking about somewhere in there and spoiling the goods.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Ah so you are obviously one of those who sees it more clearly than the rest of us? :lol:


Did I say that?


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> I was using the library example as an example of the kind of thing you seemed to be arguing for - that, despite lacking knowledge of something, you can nevertheless judge proximity to truth.
> 
> But I don't think it shows what you think it does. In the example I don't lack knowledge of where the library is at all. I just lack knowledge of where, exactly, it is. It's only because I _do_ have knowledge of where it is (course-grained knowledge, admittedly) that I can justifiably say it's not in the ocean (despite not knowing exactly where it is).
> 
> So I remain to be convinced of Humpty Dumpty's claim that you can lack knowledge of musical truth while also being justified in judging whether a performance is closer or further from it.


But isn't this exactly what Brahmsianhorn is claiming (if not he may clarify)? That he doesn't know the 'musical truth' precisely but he still has enough of a sense of it to believe that it 'is not in the water' so to speak. Perhaps a better example would be attempting to find something specific in the fog where you can only see things at a distance; you might not be able to make out things precisely or come up with precise definitions as to what things are, but you can still muddle your way around and know say, the general size of objects.



RogerWaters said:


> Nice try, though. And what a cop out your closing remarks are, and somewhat caddish: "I remember your maths example as being silly and over-simplified". Foooormidable!


I'm not sure why you would choose to describe my behaviour as caddish; I explained why I thought your mathematics example was silly after I made the statement.



RogerWaters said:


> Then you wouldn't be expressing an incorrect proposition, you'd be expressing a correct one using symbols with modified meaning (in the same way you could express the same proposition in roman numerals).


The point of your question was that, as you put it, you couldn't design a rocket in a mathematical system where 1+1=3. Quote for reference.



RogerWaters said:


> Design a rocket using a mathematical system in which 1+1=3, and see if you get your unfortunate astronauts back alive.


I provided a mathematical system in which 1+1=3 and you could clearly design a rocket; you clearly provided no other conditions on my mathematical system that would restrict my answer. If you don't like my answer, that's fine, but, perhaps ironically, that's just a subjective dislike.

If you wish to add that my mathematical system has to contain an incorrect proposition as an axiom, you'll have to define what you mean by incorrect proposition (clearly it can't be dependant upon the axiomatic system of mathematics since your asking me to create such an axiomatic system including such a proposition so apriori it's not clear what the axiomatic system is even going to be) because it certainly wouldn't be clear to me or many other people in mathematics.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

BachIsBest said:


> If you wish to add that my mathematical system has to contain an incorrect proposition as an axiom, you'll have to define what you mean by incorrect proposition (clearly it can't be dependant upon the axiomatic system of mathematics since your asking me to create such an axiomatic system including such a proposition so apriori it's not clear what the axiomatic system is even going to be) because it certainly wouldn't be clear to me or many other people in mathematics.


Finally someone with an understanding what mathematics and logic is.

I am sympathetic to Brahmsianhorn's view and I get all the hostilities. This is really an old idea dated back to Kant theory of aesthetic, which postulate that judgement of beauty - taste is subjective and singular but at the same time there is universality behind it (music truth in this context) which cannot be put down into written rules (does not admit a representation in a language system). In this sense, we can't just say everyone has their own taste but there is some elusive common ground dictates good tastes and bad tastes.


----------



## Guest

I can think of reasons why people have a fascination with a particular conductor, but not Furtwangler specifically.

There are more than enough recordings of Beethoven symphonies to suit all tastes, and that get close enough to the 'objective greatest' that we all seek. It's just that we are each seeking different 'objective greatests'. For me, an ancient orchestra recorded on antiquated equipment in monophonic sound is far from my ideal, but if it floats your boat, be my guest.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Finally someone with an understanding what mathematics and logic is.
> 
> I am sympathetic to Brahmsianhorn's view and I get all the hostilities. This is really an old idea dated back to Kant theory of aesthetic, which postulate that judgement of beauty - taste is subjective and singular but at the same time there is universality behind it (music truth in this context) which cannot be put down into written rules (does not admit a representation in a language system). In this sense, we can't just say everyone has their own taste but there is some elusive common ground dictates good tastes and bad tastes.


Going off your point, to all the haters on this thread, I don't know if you have ever been in a room where a great performance takes place, and you can just feel it resonating throughout the room. It's such a special thing. The composer, usually long dead, is a participant. The performers on stage, the audience, everyone...a human connection occurs with something magical. No one has a monopoly on it. That's what makes it universal and ineffable. It's just something you connect to, and everyone has that potential ability.

I think people are getting too wrapped up in their egos around individual judgment, like it's a competition to see who is "superior." It's not about superiority. It's just about the ability to tap into that connectivity that we all share. Why is this aspect of musicianship any different than supreme virtuosity? Someone can say Heifetz played passages more perfectly and cleanly than any other violinist, and there is no outrage or controversy. Why can't I opine that Furtwängler had a gift for tapping into the universal, spiritual truth behind music? Why does this make people so insecure and even outraged, whereas they have no problem acknowledging technical gifts?


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think people are getting too wrapped up in their egos around individual judgment, like it's a competition to see who is "superior."


There have been more than enough threads, and more than enough egos who have said precisely the opposite - that it _is _about superiority - that anyone who appears to claim that they like x or y because of the ineffable etc, (and often adding that it's not for everyone), is likely to attract criticism. Vitriol is unnecessary, of course.

I can see how my previous post contains something that might irk the lovers of Furtwangler. In fact, it's a plain description of why I generally don't bother with any of the conductors/orchestras who recorded in mono with orchestras who - according to my ears and my objective ideal - are no better than the many modern orchestras. I'm not picking on Furtwangler. I have a complete Toscanini Beethoven cycle in mono (which I bought because it was a dead cheap download) but I rarely listen to it, preferring the mix of Haitink, Karajan, Barenboim, Fricsay, McKerras, Chailly, Kleiber, Nelsons that I've accumulated.

None of them plays every passage of every symphony as my ears seem to think they should be played, but why my ears think there is some ideal version to compare with, I haven't the faintest idea. I don't think it involves Kant, though.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> None of them plays every passage of every symphony as my ears seem to think they should be played, but why my ears think there is some ideal version to compare with, I haven't the faintest idea. I don't think it involves Kant, though.


But see, having a clear image in your mind of the way something should be played is not the same thing as searching for the ideal. As I've pointed out, Furtwängler's greatness was in never being settled on what that ideal should be. The ideal is something you can never know.

I've said before on this forum that I don't approach recordings with a stringent set of criteria. I can even like recordings that are vastly different. I can even like Furtwängler recordings that are vastly different from one another. It's all about the connection, the ability to reach into the deep soul of the music's inspiration. That's the greatness of a performance, revealing the truth of a musical score. And so I guess that does involve Kant.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> There have been more than enough threads, and more than enough egos who have said precisely the opposite - that it _is _about superiority - that anyone who appears to claim that they like x or y because of the ineffable etc, (and often adding that it's not for everyone), is likely to attract criticism. Vitriol is unnecessary, of course.


And by the way, when I talk about haters I'm not talking about the people who don't respond to Furtwängler. I could care less about that. I'm talking about the ones on these pages who have taken personal shots at me for my views on Furtwängler and on music in general.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But see, having a clear image in your mind of the way something should be played is not the same thing as searching for the ideal. As I've pointed out, Furtwängler's greatness was in never being settled on what that ideal should be. The ideal is something you can never know.
> 
> I've said before on this forum that I don't approach recordings with a stringent set of criteria. I can even like recordings that are vastly different. I can even like Furtwängler recordings that are vastly different from one another. It's all about the connection, the ability to reach into the deep soul of the music's inspiration. That's the greatness of a performance, revealing the truth of a musical score. And so I guess that does involve Kant.


Well, as I said, there's more than enough variations to suit every taste, and if your search is for the ideal, that's fine by me. I'll just register that I'm in the camp that is happy with the idea that 'the clear image in my mind' (which isn't actually that clear) _is_ 'the ideal'. We can disagree without falling out about it, or claiming superiority about our search for it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think people are getting too wrapped up in their egos around individual judgment, like it's a competition to see who is "superior." It's not about superiority. It's just about the ability to tap into that connectivity that we all share. Why is this aspect of musicianship any different than supreme virtuosity? Someone can say Heifetz played passages more perfectly and cleanly than any other violinist, and there is no outrage or controversy. Why can't I opine that Furtwängler had a gift for tapping into the universal, spiritual truth behind music? Why does this make people so insecure and even outraged, whereas they have no problem acknowledging technical gifts?


Well put. I think some people simply do not buy into the Dionysian aesthetic (we connect through music), or they have no personal experience of it so they reject the idea as hoax or posturing. Also the analytic philosophical tradition is dominant in the west so people tend to mock the inexplicable or the spiritual without realizing that view is narrow, outdated (even in the realm of cognitive science), and limiting for music appreciation.

I like to add that Furtwangler had supreme skill too, just a different kind than Heifetz. For me it's more about allowing freedom in control, or controlled freedom. And that is very difficult to achieve in concept, let alone to achieve in practice. He simply never cared to do what Toscanini was doing, which is in some way exacting (I admire him too).

But like you said, music making shouldn't be about cutthroat competition or gaining superiority or controlling every detail, that's the pursuit of power, allegorized by Alberich's pursuit of the ring of Nibelungen, after renouncing love. For me, the biggest revealation from listening to Furtwangler is that music can be alive, and we can be free through music. You can hear this energy in his war time recordings, the yearning for freedom and for triumph (over the Nazi regime that he openly opposed). The recordings at the end of the war has this contradictory ebullience that's deeply human, and it shows not just in his conducting but in the playing of the musicians of BPO. They all share the same vision and they became one.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Well put. I think some people simply do not buy into the Dionysian aesthetic (we connect through music), or they have no personal experience of it so they reject the idea as hoax or posturing.


Well, obviously. "Some people" just want to listen to the music, so don't buy into any aesthetic at all.

(Funny, I thought it was the Dionysian aesthetic and the rejection of the Apollonian that started off the whole "Me, me, me" thing anyway. I must get back to phil school.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Well, as I said, there's more than enough variations to suit every taste, and if your search is for the ideal, that's fine by me. I'll just register that I'm in the camp that is happy with the idea that 'the clear image in my mind' (which isn't actually that clear) _is_ 'the ideal'. We can disagree without falling out about it, or claiming superiority about our search for it.


The purpose of bring up Kant is not to resort to authority, but to point out that this is an age old question, and great thinkers had put some effort into it. For example, the concept of subjective universality is useful in this context, since many seem to have a difficulty to reconcile the two, and resort to ridicule such idea without putting much thought into it, which I find unnecessary.

Ultimately, it's more about understanding each other rather than rejecting each other. Furtwangler is not without fault, for sure, he's conducting philosophy embraces imperfections, and may not be the end-all and be-all for everyone. But the greatness of his art is worth investigating even for the haters.



MacLeod said:


> Well, obviously. "Some people" just want to listen to the music, so don't buy into any aesthetic at all.


I understand that, but to appreciate or to judge music you need aesthetics (whether implicitly or explicitly).

The fact that people are so into virtuosity, into refined skills, into perfect sound reflect their aesthetics and musical ideals.



> I thought it was the Dionysian aesthetic and the rejection of the Apollonian that started off the whole "Me, me, me" thing anyway. I must get back to phil school.


This classic dichotomy was beautifully analyzed by Nietzche in his thesis (I think) the Birth of Tragedy in which he ties the Dionysian to Greek tragedies and espousing it as the highest form of art. People connect through the chorus section of the tragedy or getting drunk during Bacchus festival in order to be free of their miserable fate and the nihilistic world. (pain is lessened because such fate is shared)


----------



## Guest

I think someone posted earlier the idea that reference to Kant (or any philosopher) should be taken as a reference to a previous exploration, not to a previous solution. I would go one further and say that whilst it's interesting for the philosophers for such references to be made, I'm not sure what it achieves when what most people want to do here is have their own exploration. It's not like we're breaching copyright and have to acknowledge sources. If I want to set out my experience of listening to and responding to music without specific reference to any particular pre-formulated aesthetic, I should be able to do that without having someone come along and tell me that this was all discussed umpteen years ago by Mr Grecian Himation or Mr Powdered Wig and has all been settled.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Going off your point, to all the *haters* on this thread, I don't know if you have ever been in a room where a great performance takes place, and you can just feel it resonating throughout the room. It's such a special thing. The composer, usually long dead, is a participant. The performers on stage, the audience, everyone...a human connection occurs with something magical. No one has a monopoly on it. That's what makes it universal and ineffable. It's just something you connect to, and everyone has that potential ability.
> 
> I think *people are getting too wrapped up in their egos around individual judgment*, like it's a competition to see who is "superior." It's not about superiority. It's just about the ability to tap into that connectivity that we all share. Why is this aspect of musicianship any different than supreme virtuosity? Someone can say Heifetz played passages more perfectly and cleanly than any other violinist, and there is no outrage or controversy. Why can't I opine that Furtwängler had a gift for tapping into the universal, spiritual truth behind music? *Why does this make people so insecure and even outraged*, whereas they have no problem acknowledging technical gifts?


Interesting turn in your posts. The 'magic' of a live performance where everything seems to come together and you are part of it, was probably experienced by most of us here, as we all got pretty much obsessed with the same subject. I never experienced it with Furtwangler, as he was already dead long before I was born. I did however experience it in many other cases. It is always a wonderful experience, but it is also very unpredictable. Even in a series of concerts, it might 'happen' one night and it won't another.

I think your many harsh judgments/labeling and distancing of 'other' people, also repeatedly expressed in this very same post, prevents you from experiencing the magic we all are looking for and calls for reactions that you obviously don't like, it is like a self fulfilling prophecy.

May I ask, were you ever at a Furtwangler concert? If so, did 'ít' happen? And the magical experience you describe, did you never have that with other performers since F died, almost 70 years ago?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Ok

Take the physical sciences and take a Kantian position. There is an objective physical world, but we cannot know it directly. We, however, have our perceptions (and in the modern world these are aided by our machines). We can test things. For example, if we jump off tall buildings bad things are likely to happen, whether we believe it or not.

Now draw a parallel to a piece of music. We hypothesise that there is an objective version of it. The idea seems to be that we are drawn towards that (although we don't know what it is).

We note, however, that others prefer performances that we see as very much inferior in substantial ways. What do we make of the differences between these performances? They might not be relevant for the objective version (but we don't want to believe that, because we see them as important differences). If they are relevant for the objective version then we imagine that one performance is closer than the other to the objective version.

So we have believers in an objective version, but we also have others (who may or may not also be believers) who like performances which are anathema to the first group: how do we resolve the difference? To put it crudely: who is right? I can't for the life of me see that we have any way of doing so. Indeed, if I came up with a suggestion of how to do so, then I guess others would prefer a different approach, and round and round we go.

I don't see how postulating that there is an ideal adds anything to our situation (- that of how to appreciate a performance of a piece of music). If you say that we can both be right in our preferences, then the ideal does not seem to be particularly helpful; if you say that we can't both be right, well who is?

I would be happy simply to ignore the issue, and move on, with my belief that there may or may not be some strange realm of ideal music, but that it makes no difference. However, what it does seem to do is to poison debate about musical preferences. I really don't see how it can fail to do that, and I cite this thread as evidence.


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> I think someone posted earlier the idea that reference to Kant (or any philosopher) should be taken as a reference to a previous exploration, not to a previous solution. I would go one further and say that whilst it's interesting for the philosophers for such references to be made, I'm not sure what it achieves when what most people want to do here is have their own exploration. It's not like we're breaching copyright and have to acknowledge sources. If I want to set out my experience of listening to and responding to music without specific reference to any particular pre-formulated aesthetic, I should be able to do that without having someone come along and tell me that this was all discussed umpteen years ago by Mr Grecian Himation or Mr Powdered Wig and has all been settled.


Indeed. I am guilty of mentioning philosophers here, but I have always tried to do so only in conjunction with a pointer to the particular issue, so that those who get the reference will recognise what I'm trying to say, and those who don't could type the pointer into Google (if they can be bothered). For example, I admit to mentioning Russell's teapot. It's a kind of shorthand.

I agree that it adds nothing to say that X sorted this ages ago, or just as unhelpfully to state that modern thinking now has all the answers which those old people hadn't got right.

I see the idea of each of us pursuing our own explanation as a good way of looking at it, and (in my mind at least) it's the sort of thinking which fits with my personal unease about the concept of an objective ideal. I find that it undermines the fundamental importance of us as individuals.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> I think someone posted earlier the idea that reference to Kant (or any philosopher) should be taken as a reference to a previous exploration, not to a previous solution. I would go one further and say that whilst it's interesting for the philosophers for such references to be made, I'm not sure what it achieves when what most people want to do here is have their own exploration. It's not like we're breaching copyright and have to acknowledge sources. If I want to set out my experience of listening to and responding to music without specific reference to any particular pre-formulated aesthetic, I should be able to do that without having someone come along and tell me that this was all discussed umpteen years ago by Mr Grecian Himation or Mr Powdered Wig and has all been settled.


I get it. But you have misunderstood my point.

Of course you should listen and think for yourself. But when you encounter different opinion, different ideas, or when you want to express the deep experience you have felt, you need tools to explore. So why reinvent the tools?

Nobody is forcing you. Nobody has that power. You don't have to buy into any preexisting aesthetic. But you can't possibly know if you are not even aware of it. Are you suggesting that even mentioning them somehow diminishes your agency in listening?

And a lot of times we are confused about the gaps in aesthetic experiences, or we are lost in debate, going circles. This is often symptomatic of ill-formed questions, or problematic concepts, different implicit aesthetic standards and so on. So to have some common ground, and to have a discourse that goes somewhere, maybe we need to clarify a bit.

Nothing is settled if you don't want it to be settle, the point is appreciation of art does not happen in a vacuum, there is a rich history and on going discourse dated all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. It's open ended, if you have a take on things, you can freely discuss. It is ultimately your choice whether to tap into that or not. If you want to be left alone, it's not like the Mr Powdered Wig can force you.

But if you have nothing valuable to add, then you have nothing valuable add, it's OK, just don't blame dead people for taking away your agency somehow.


----------



## Eclectic Al

A blinding insight of great brilliance.

When BH and others talk about an objective ideal, I had (not unreasonably) the definition of objective as an adjective in mind:

Objective (adj) - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Perhaps they were thinking of objective as a noun:

Objective (noun) - a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.

In that sense we can obviously all have our own objectives, which we are seeking. If BH means that we have a thing we are seeking in listening to a musical performance, and that we see that as our own personal ideal (which is my objective in listening to performances) then I'm happy.

(That's my own objective ideal in the interpretation I prefer for the "objective ideal". We can apparently all have our own different objective ideals about the interpretation we prefer for this statement, and that's mine :tiphat:.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Now draw a parallel to a piece of music. We hypothesise that there is an objective version of it. The idea seems to be that we are drawn towards that (although we don't know what it is).


It's why I brought up Kantian theory in the first place. People ridicule and attack Brahmsianhorn for suggesting similar concept, that seems way too harsh for me. What *Kant suggested is not some "objective version of music" but the idea of "subject universality"*, that *even though our judgement of art is subjective (not universal statements), there is universality that governs these subjective judgement, so that tastes are not entirely arbitrary*, which is a very reasonable position that everyone can understand.

I am new to the debate but I feel like this is related to what Brahmsianhorn wants to express, and I can understand that experience so to make sense of it, a little theory goes a long way.

Another important point by Kant is that *this subject universality cannot be put into words or rules*. This sounds like a speculation but is intuitive to a lot of people. Music is where language ends. 20th century mathematical logic also reveals that there is limit and holes in formal language (logic and mathematics and language in general), so the space of language fundamentally cannot fully describe the reality. It is also a tendency in cognitive science to argue that even rational understanding of the reality is highly distorted.

These are relevant because the idea that *"anything perceivable and real can be put into language and organized by logic" is a flawed one and should not be taken for granted*. This means that there is likely *more to our subject experience (of music) than what can be rationally analyzed* (also non language part of the brain also react to the music).

This *subjective experience is governed by certain universality* (which can be seen as the so called "objective truth" in the discussion) simply because our brain has similar structure (but dissecting the brain would miss the point because it is phenomenological).

So to conclude, *nothing is settled*, but it just seem appalling to me that people use ad hom attack and mockery for such believes or ideals that is not ridiculous at all. Plus mentioning philosophy is totally fine as long as it's in plain words. Classical music and philosophy have always been intertwined since Beethoven.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's why I brought up Kantian theory in the first place. People ridicule and attack Brahmsianhorn for suggesting similar concept, that seems way too harsh for me. What *Kant suggested is not some "objective version of music" but the idea of "subject universality"*, that *even though our judgement of art is subjective (not universal statements), there is universality that governs these subjective judgement, so that tastes are not entirely arbitrary*, which is a very reasonable position that everyone can understand.
> 
> I am new to the debate but I feel like this is related to what Brahmsianhorn wants to express, and I can understand that experience so to make sense of it, a little theory goes a long way.
> 
> Another important point by Kant is that *this subject universality cannot be put into words or rules*. This sounds like a speculation but is intuitive to a lot of people. Music is where language ends. 20th century mathematical logic also reveals that there is limit and holes in formal language (logic and mathematics and language in general), so the space of language fundamentally cannot fully describe the reality. It is also a tendency in cognitive science to argue that even rational understanding of the reality is highly distorted.
> 
> These are relevant because the idea that *"anything perceivable and real can be put into language and organized by logic" is a flawed one and should not be taken for granted*. This means that there is likely *more to our subject experience (of music) than what can be rationally analyzed* (also non language part of the brain also react to the music).
> 
> This *subjective experience is governed by certain universality* (which can be seen as the so called "objective truth" in the discussion) simply because our brain has similar structure (but dissecting the brain would miss the point because it is phenomenological).
> 
> So to conclude, *nothing is settled*, but it just seem appalling to me that people use ad hom attack and mockery for such believes or ideals that is not ridiculous at all. Plus mentioning philosophy is totally fine as long as it's in plain words. Classical music and philosophy have always been intertwined since Beethoven.


I don't think I disagree with any of that.

I am in particular fully willing to accept that there are differences in brains around a core of similarity. Hence, there may be things which are generally "attractive" aesthetically, and other things which are more subjective. That's all well and good.

My problem with the approach that BH is putting though is that I cannot see any way in which positing the existence of (based on the Furtwangler quote) an objectively true rendering of a piece of music helps (and, as I have noted, I think it poisons discussion - fairly or unfairly).

My feeling is that the way the concept of an objectively true rendering is being deployed in this discussion is by people who wish to claim that their preference is in better accord with the objectively true rendering than is someone else's preference. They think they can make this OK by saying that that is their opinion, but that doesn't help. It just means I think I am better than you, rather than I can prove that I am better than you. In a sense it is worse.

I would also note that in other threads it seems to be a similar mindset which lies behind a use of terms which denigrate others' opinions. To give an example, when performer A is compared to B one style of comment is to say that A has a wider dynamic range than B, or a more flexible rhythmic pulse, and then to say that they prefer A or B. That's fine. However, some others make comments along the lines that the interpretation of A is more superficial, whereas B penetrates closer to the truth. That is denigrating the preference of someone who prefers B, and it does not help to say that it is just an opinion. That is because it is an opinion that one's preference is superior, rather than a statement of a preference (which you could try and explain). This has happened to me when I started a thread on the basis of a liking for Murray Perahia's performances. It wasn't long before it drifted into statements that I must like superficial interpretations because I admired Mr Perahia.

I think it is the connection between the idea of an objectively true rendering and the use of that idea to denigrate the preferences of others which is why this thread has become so heated (and also why some other threads do too).


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Did I say that?


You certainly implied it


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Going off your point, to all the haters on this thread, I don't know if you have ever been in a room where a great performance takes place, and you can just feel it resonating throughout the room. It's such a special thing. The composer, usually long dead, is a participant. The performers on stage, the audience, everyone...a human connection occurs with something magical. No one has a monopoly on it. That's what makes it universal and ineffable. It's just something you connect to, and everyone has that potential ability.
> 
> I think people are getting too wrapped up in their egos around individual judgment, like it's a competition to see who is "superior." It's not about superiority. It's just about the ability to tap into that connectivity that we all share. Why is this aspect of musicianship any different than supreme virtuosity? Someone can say Heifetz played passages more perfectly and cleanly than any other violinist, and there is no outrage or controversy. Why can't I opine that Furtwängler had a gift for tapping into the universal, spiritual truth behind music? Why does this make people so insecure and even outraged, whereas they have no problem acknowledging technical gifts?


You talk about it not being about 'superiority' then talk about 'haters'. Come on, you are setting yourself up as superior by that talk.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And by the way, when I talk about haters I'm not talking about the people who don't respond to Furtwängler. I could care less about that. I'm talking about the ones on these pages who have taken personal shots at me for my views on Furtwängler and on music in general.


You are talking about people who disagree with you and the way you put things. It makes you feel morally superior using 'Haters'


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I get it. But you have misunderstood my point.


Very probably, but I didn't quote you, so probably wasn't responding to 'your' point. I was making a general observation about a tendency evident in this thread (and I've noticed it in others too) to think that making a reference to a specific philosophical view somehow gives a greater legitimacy to their side of the argument. I was expressing doubt that this is the case ("I'm not sure what it achieves")



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But when you encounter different opinion, different ideas, or when you want to express the deep experience you have felt, you need tools to explore. So why reinvent the tools?


I'm not sure you do, actually, but even if you do, reinvention is a great form of exploration.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You don't have to buy into any preexisting aesthetic.


Thanks



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But you can't possibly know if you are not even aware of it. Are you suggesting that even mentioning them somehow diminishes your agency in listening?


Why do I need to be aware of it? No, I'm not worried about agency, more about keeping my feet on the ground and not getting lost in philosophy.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But if you have nothing valuable to add, then you have nothing valuable add, it's OK, just don't blame dead people for taking away your agency somehow.


I did have something to add - and it was valuable to me. I don't think I'm any more self-regarding when I post than plenty of other TC members. We're all taking it in turns to stand on our soap-boxes.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't think I disagree with any of that.
> 
> I am in particular fully willing to accept that there are differences in brains around a core of similarity. Hence, there may be things which are generally "attractive" aesthetically, and other things which are more subjective. That's all well and good.


Thanks for the thoughtful comment. For me, there is a tension between "any opinion is valid" and "my taste is better yours". If we take the first view, then we have essentially given up appreciation because nothing we say is informative anyway and nobody can be challenged so no one can grow. Stating facts about the performances will not help because appreciation of music ultimately comes down to making judgement, to say one is better than the other in some way.

However if we take the second view, then people may get offended or may feel their agency is invalidated. I understand that individuality should be respected. But to suggest that an online discussion would somehow violate that, given that debates are civil, seems too tame and safe for me. It's a wonderful thing that people convince me why my taste in music is awful because I can improve my music judgement and understand why certain things are not as good as I thought, or why certain things are better than I thought. As long as the argument is convincing, the perspective interesting, why not? What's there to lose except a bit of ego? It is the thing that challenges you often reveal your blind spot and weakness.

All of this ultimately comes down to trust and good faith. We all get a little carried away in heated debates and resort to dirty tactics to gain advantage to validate ourselves. But if there is a possibly to gaining new insight into music, then it is worth it to de-escalate and get somewhere. If people think Perahia' performances are superficial, then maybe it is, I would ask why, what's the logic behind it, show it to me, convince me! If they can't, why should I take them seriously anyway?

From my limited interaction with BH, he has given valuable insight into music for me. I want to know why he felt so strongly about Furtwangler getting close to the "truth". I want to understand that experience. I don't have to feel inferior in any way even if he claims that Furtwangler is the ultimate conductor that knows the "truth" precisely because that's his opinion. Even if he is use of term might be questionable, it's because these things are hard to explain! But calling him a "Buffoon" or "Humpty Dumpty" is just awful, and you can't compare insults with people challenging your taste with a concrete argument.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

NLAdriaan said:


> I think your many harsh judgments/labeling and distancing of 'other' people, also repeatedly expressed in this very same post, prevents you from experiencing the magic we all are looking for and calls for reactions that you obviously don't like, it is like a self fulfilling prophecy.


I'm specifically talking about certain posters on this thread who have attacked me for describing a universal phenomenon. It has nothing to do with liking Furtwängler.



NLAdriaan said:


> May I ask, were you ever at a Furtwangler concert? If so, did 'ít' happen? And the magical experience you describe, did you never have that with other performers since F died, almost 70 years ago?


You seem to be insinuating that I consider this magic exclusive to Furtwängler. I absolutely do not. It pre-exists my familiarity with Furtwängler. I am merely discussing it here because the topic of the thread is to explain our fascination with this particular conductor.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You talk about it not being about 'superiority' then talk about 'haters'. Come on, you are setting yourself up as superior by that talk.


If you have attacked me rather than try to understand me, yes I see you as a hater. Has zero to do with any perceived superiority on your part. In fact, if you have a complex around fearing others are superior as opposed to someone with whom you can find common ground, that is often what leads to hate.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> My feeling is that the way the concept of an objectively true rendering is being deployed in this discussion is by people who wish to claim that their preference is in better accord with the objectively true rendering than is someone else's preference. They think they can make this OK by saying that that is their opinion, but that doesn't help. It just means I think I am better than you, rather than I can prove that I am better than you. In a sense it is worse.


What's true for me is true for me, and what's true for you is true for you. What's wrong with that? They are all subjective variations on the truth. Hell, my version may change after listening to your version. The point of it being an opinion is that it can always change. Why muck it up with all this "better than" crap? Why even introduce that into the discussion?


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's a wonderful thing that people convince me why my taste in music is awful because I can improve my music judgement and understand why certain things are not as good as I thought, or why certain things are better than I thought. As long as the argument is convincing, the perspective interesting, why not? What's there to lose except a bit of ego? It is the thing that challenges you often reveal your blind spot and weakness.


Absolutely agree. My problem is when there is no attempt at convincing. Too often on these threads there is simply an assertion: "your taste is superficial".

I am well aware that various people on this thread are way more knowledgeable about musical matters than I am, and that's one of the main reasons for participating. I would like to learn from different (and likely more informed) perspectives, often via recommendations. It is not helpful in that, though, simply to be faced with an assertion that there is a truth out there which I do not appreciate, and my own preferences are evidence of a superficial understanding.

To criticise someone's preference seems to me to bring with it an obligation of explanation. If someone can explain why my preference is superficial, and what might be better, then they can do me the decency of attempting an explanation. If they cannot explain, then perhaps they should just note that it is their preference.

When you do get an "explanation" it is usually just an assertion of their own preference. For example, "A is too polished, whereas with B you can hear the performers stretching for the truth in the raggedness of their playing at key moments." Well that is just a statement of a preference for a more raw performance style, with "truth" thrown in for effect. There is no explanation inherent in that of why the raw performance style is objectively better, or closer to the "truth". I might prefer a more polished performance (- maybe in this piece, and in others I might go along with the "raw" idea), and that is just a preference too, although I too could assert that it is closer to the "truth".

I suppose I just don't see what function this concept of musical truth performs, except to poison debate.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's true for me is true for me, and what's true for you is true for you. What's wrong with that? They are all subjective variations on the truth. Hell, my version may change after listening to your version. The point of it being an opinion is that it can always change. Why muck it up with all this "better than" crap? Why even introduce that into the discussion?


I just don't think that true is the right word, because it carries a whole load of connotations. If you insert something like "more resonant" instead of true, then that's fine.

I think I'm just trying to protect the word true.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you have attacked me rather than try to understand me, yes I see you as a hater. Has zero to do with any perceived superiority on your part. In fact, if you have a complex around fearing others are superior as opposed to someone with whom you can find common ground, that is often what leads to hate.


Interesting that it is always others that have to understand you rather than you adjusting to understand others. Don't worry I have no complex in fearing others to be superior to me. By the time you get to my age you realise some people will always be better. I take it you haven't grown into that yet?


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's true for me is true for me, and what's true for you is true for you. What's wrong with that? They are all subjective variations on the truth. Hell, my version may change after listening to your version. The point of it being an opinion is that it can always change. Why muck it up with all this "better than" crap? Why even introduce that into the discussion?





Eclectic Al said:


> I just don't think that true is the right word, because it carries a whole load of connotations. If you insert something like "more resonant" instead of true, then that's fine.
> 
> I think I'm just trying to protect the word true.


That's my interest in this thread. Discussion becomes impossible if when people insist on using their private definition of words. These discussions that never go anywhere invariable involves an individual who insists the "X" means "Y," when you can go to the dictionary and find out that no, "X" does not mean "Y."

Here there is the baffling situation where Brahmsianhorn insists there is an "objectively true" way to perform a piece of music, although different people have different ideas of what this is because we all have our own "truth." He (she?) insists to the death that this objective truth of a piece of music exists, although this is the definition of "subjective," the opposite of objective.

I was listening to Backhaus' Beethoven today, and I was tempted to say something to the effect that "he gets to the truth of it" but would mean that he has a firm conception of the piece and he has the skill to convey that conception." The skill is objective, the conception is subjective, and it depends on the apparent fact that I have a similar conception of the piece, although other great musicians and other listeners have other conceptions.

To the extent to which there is a "truth" to a performance it is fidelity to the composers expressed wishes (i.e. the score and other instructions left by the composer). Of course this truth is objective to the extent that it is defined, yet insufficient. There is always a necessity for the artist to elaborate on the composers score using his or her own subjective conception of the work.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Interesting that it is always others that have to understand you rather than you adjusting to understand others. Don't worry I have no complex in fearing others to be superior to me. By the time you get to my age you realise some people will always be better. I take it you haven't grown into that yet?


I have had no problem understanding others. You don't have to agree with someone to understand what they are saying. I don't twist people's words in order to bring them down. I don't understand the value in that. Apparently it does something for you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> That's my interest in this thread. Discussion becomes impossible if when people insist on using their private definition of words. These discussions that never go anywhere invariable involves an individual who insists the "X" means "Y," when you can go to the dictionary and find out that no, "X" does not mean "Y."
> 
> Here there is the baffling situation where Brahmsianhorn insists there is an "objectively true" way to perform a piece of music, although different people have different ideas of what this is because we all have our own "truth." He (she?) insists to the death that this objective truth of a piece of music exists, although this is the definition of "subjective," the opposite of objective.
> 
> I was listening to Backhaus' Beethoven today, and I was tempted to say something to the effect that "he gets to the truth of it" but would mean that he has a firm conception of the piece and he has the skill to convey that conception." The skill is objective, the conception is subjective, and it depends on the apparent fact that I have a similar conception of the piece, although other great musicians and other listeners have other conceptions.
> 
> To the extent to which there is a "truth" to a performance it is fidelity to the composers expressed wishes (i.e. the score and other instructions left by the composer). Of course this truth is objective to the extent that it is defined, yet insufficient. There is always a necessity for the artist to elaborate on the composers score using his or her own subjective conception of the work.


How many times do I have to repeat that having a firm conception in practice is not what I mean by objective ideal? The objective ideal can NEVER be realized in practice. You keep trying to turn it into a concrete thing when it is the OPPOSITE.

Among my favorite versions of the Eroica are Furtwangler and Toscanini. How do you make sense of that? According to you I am stringently applying a precise objective standard. No, I am doing the opposite!!! I am applying an abstract standard for which there are many subjective ways of approaching.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How many times do I have to repeat that having a firm conception in practice is not what I mean by objective ideal? The objective ideal can NEVER be realized in practice. You keep trying to turn it into a concrete thing when it is the OPPOSITE.
> 
> Among my favorite versions of the Eroica are Furtwangler and Toscanini. How do you make sense of that? According to you I am stringently applying a precise objective standard. No, I am doing the opposite!!! I am applying an abstract standard for which there are many subjective ways of approaching.


OK, but then no one else can make any sense of what role this objective ideal plays in your preferences or anyone else's.

You refer in this latest post to the fact that you are "applying an abstract standard". Could you explain that standard somehow? Without some ability to communicate something about this abstract standard, which others can then in some way relate to musical performances, it is difficult to make sense of its role.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> OK, but then no one else can make any sense of what role this objective ideal plays in your preferences or anyone else's.
> 
> You refer in this latest post to the fact that you are "applying an abstract standard". Could you explain that standard somehow? Without some ability to communicate something about this abstract standard, which others can then in some way relate to musical performances, it is difficult to make sense of its role.


You know what the answer is? I cannot tell you that standard because you have to figure it out yourself. What is true for me is true for me, and what is true for you is true for you. Get it?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have had no problem understanding others. You don't have to agree with someone to understand what they are saying. I don't twist people's words in order to bring them down. I don't understand the value in that. Apparently it does something for you.


Oh yes! Always someone else. Looking at what everyone is saying it is apparent you do have a problem communicating. But keep blaming others. Good for the ego if not the soul.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Oh yes! Always someone else. Looking at what everyone is saying it is apparent you do have a problem communicating. But keep blaming others. Good for the ego if not the soul.


But you are not trying to understand. You are trying to win an argument. That is very apparent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Furtwangler is one of those artists whose art is an expression of their "being." This sort of connection is really beyond dispute, IMHO.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But you are not trying to understand. You are trying to win an argument. That is very apparent.


Well hark who is talking! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Well hark who is talking! :lol:


Talking about what? What was that again? Furtwangler?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Well hark who is talking! :lol:


I am not trying to win an argument. I am searching for truth and engaging with others in this process. I don't have the answers.

When I get angry or upset, it is not because someone does not agree with my position. It is because someone is being anti-dialectic by making things personal and trying to "win." So they won't try to understand and then test my ideas against their own judgment, as some do, but they will simply do as you do: dumb down what I say so that you can declare yourself the winner. That is an an anathema to me. How can I engage in dialectic discourse if my words and meaning are being distorted by someone with no intent other than to bring me down personally? Do you see me doing this to others? Please point it out if you do.

Now someone like Knorf will say "Oh you are playing a victim!" and "You are the real bully."

First, pointing out what I don't like or appreciate is not playing a victim. It is drawing a boundary over what I consider decent behavior. Second, simply stating my opinions over music does not make me a bully and therefore a fair target. By definition, a bully must have a target. That is the kind of behavior I abhor. The only point of it is self-aggrandizement.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You know what the answer is? I cannot tell you that standard because you have to figure it out yourself. What is true for me is true for me, and what is true for you is true for you. Get it?


No. Not really. This is even more mysterious than before. You tell me that something exists for you (and it does seem to be important to you). But you cannot communicate anything about it.

I don't see why that is of any interest to anyone else, so I am puzzled why you keep mentioning it to other people.

I could say that when I am selecting a colour of paint for my walls I like to compare it with my ideal wall colour, which I see on a balloon which only I can see that floats in a room when I am considering painting it. I give this the status of the "objectively true colour balloon". The closer the colour I can buy is to the colour of the balloon the closer to truth it is. I can never quite get the right shade, because the paint manufacturers can't quite deliver, but I can tell if they're getting closer.

I know that other people seem to prefer other colours, so I assume they have different "objectively true colour balloons". That's fine. We can all have our own colour balloons, and they are all objectively true in their role of defining our own favourite wall colours.

I am still puzzled though about what the colour balloons add beyond me just saying that I think that room would look good in beige.

Sometimes my colour balloon changes colour, and I then have to redecorate. You might just think my preference has changed, but no - I can assure you - it is my colour balloon changing.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Talking about what? What was that again? Furtwangler?


No in circles!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am not trying to win an argument. I am searching for truth and engaging with others in this process. I don't have the answers.
> 
> When I get angry or upset, it is not because someone does not agree with my position. It is because someone is being anti-dialectic by making things personal and trying to "win." So they won't try to understand and then test my ideas against their own judgment, as some do, but they will simply do as you do: dumb down what I say so that you can declare yourself the winner. That is an an anathema to me. How can I engage in dialectic discourse if my words and meaning are being distorted by someone with no intent other than to bring me down personally? Do you see me doing this to others? Please point it out if you do.
> 
> Now someone like Knorf will say "Oh you are playing a victim!" and "You are the real bully."
> 
> First, pointing out what I don't like or appreciate is not playing a victim. It is drawing a boundary over what I consider decent behavior. Second, simply stating my opinions over music does not make me a bully and therefore a fair target. By definition, a bully must have a target. That is the kind of behavior I abhor. The only point of it is self-aggrandizement.


Okay so we agree it's everybody else and not you if that suits you and massages your ego. The fact that you do everything you accuse everyone else of doing seems to escape you! Never mind!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Okay so we agree it's everybody else and not you if that suits you and massages your ego. The fact that you do everything you accuse everyone else of doing seems to escape you! Never mind!


I said please point it out if you see me doing this to others. Go ahead. I'm waiting. When have I targeted someone personally as you have done to me?


----------



## Knorf

Why the fork am I back here? Oy, veh.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> ... How can I engage in dialectic discourse if my words and meaning are being distorted by u with no intent other than to bring me down personally? Do you see me doing this to others? Please point it out if you do.
> 
> Now someone like Knorf will say "Oh you are playing a victim!" and "You are the real bully."


I never wrote the things you are quoting me as saying, but everyone knew that. You're not fooling anyone. But maybe I should have? It's clearly justified at this point. But, nah. Not worth my time.

Thanks, I suppose, for providing your own example of your doing exactly what you said don't do. Impressively, a sentence later, no less.

But use someone else next time, please. I'm just not that into you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> No. Not really. This is even more mysterious than before. You tell me that something exists for you (and it does seem to be important to you). But you cannot communicate anything about it.


I communicate about it all the time when I indicate my preferences, as some people seem to think I do too much of already.

The difference is you are setting at the bar at OBJECTIVELY DEFINING a standard. I cannot do that, and neither can you. We can only approximate our objective standard.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Why the fork am I back here? Oy, veh.
> 
> I never wrote the things you are quoting me as saying, but everyone knew that. You're not fooling anyone. But maybe I should have? It's clearly justified at this point. But, nah. Not worth my time.
> 
> Thanks, I suppose, for providing your own example of your doing exactly what you said don't do. Impressively, a sentence later, no less.
> 
> But use someone else next time, please. I'm just not that into you.


You don't remember accusing me of playing victim and saying that I am the real bully?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said please point it out if you see me doing this to others. Go ahead. I'm waiting. When have I targeted someone personally as you have done to me?


You seem to have this paranoia that when people disagree with you they are 'targeting' you. Sorry. Your problem


----------



## Eclectic Al

Eclectic Al said:


> I could say that when I am selecting a colour of paint for my walls I like to compare it with my ideal wall colour, which I see on a balloon which only I can see that floats in a room when I am considering painting it. I give this the status of the "objectively true colour balloon".


Oh, and then I call in the decorators. I say to the decorators that I have this colour balloon thing, but I can't show it to them. However, I have a colour chart and tell them that the closest colour is that Colour X, but it's got a little bit of Colour Y in it.

I get two decorators in.

One firm (Toscanini Brothers) says: "OK, I'll do my best to match the colour. I can go to the shop and mix a special colour for you based on what you've told me."

Another firm (Furtwangler & Sons) says : "Well, I see what you're indicating but it's only a small part of the cosmic beauty you could obtain with some splashes of another colour added."

Now Furtwangler & Sons might be correct, but I'm not sure it's my colour balloon any more.

Oh, and then Stokowski Ltd come round and want to knock down the wall.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I communicate about it all the time when I indicate my preferences, as some people seem to think I do too much of already.
> 
> The difference is you are setting at the bar at OBJECTIVELY DEFINING a standard. I cannot do that, and neither can you. We can only approximate our objective standard.


Feel free to communicate your preferences. That's a lot of what this whole site is about.
But that is really all they are: your preferences. They might be very well thought through, and based on a lot of musical understanding. They may be coherent in some sense, in seeking to embody a certain aesthetic in performance. They might well be preferences which are based on much sounder foundations intellectually than my more flimsy likes and dislikes. It might be helpful to me and others to hear them, and check them out. It may well be that my preferences will change to come more into line with your recommendations.

But they are just preferences. Albeit that your preference may be more in line with your subjective standard.


----------



## Duncan

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this photograph of Furtwängler conducting the Berliner Philharmoniker at the Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival in San Francisco but perhaps there may actually be something to this whole "cult" concept after all...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> But they are just preferences.


Where have I said otherwise?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Duncan said:


> Perhaps I'm reading too much into this photograph of Furtwängler conducting the Berliner Philharmoniker at the Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival in San Francisco but perhaps there may actually be something to this whole "cult" concept after all...
> 
> View attachment 139262


New insight into the objective ideal of the Eroica, I imagine.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where have I said otherwise?


My understanding of what you have been saying is that your preferences relate to closeness to an objective ideal.

This means that they are not purely preferences, but are (at least in principle) susceptible to being judged by reference to how far away from the objective ideal they are.

You then get around this by suggesting that we can all have our own objective ideal. But I (and a lot of others) think that that is to misuse the word "objective".

I really don't understand the difficulty you have in accepting that the ideal you have in your mind is subjective.

That would not mean that there can't be constraints on the ideal which any reasonable person would accept and which might (for example) allow us to agree on what is a very poor performance, so the subjectivity does not imply that anything goes. However, at the level of choosing between performances between highly skilled and knowledgeable performers doing their best, I can't see that the choice is anything other than a personal preference (which may be based on a subjective ideal, if you have one in your mind).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> *You seem to have this paranoia* that when people disagree with you they are 'targeting' you. *Sorry. Your problem*


Right. I am so silly. Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Right. I am so silly. Thanks for setting me straight.


My pleasure! :tiphat:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> New insight into the objective ideal of the Eroica, I imagine.


You complained about how people's uninitiated opinions poison discussion. Yet here you are, making mean spirited jokes, denigrating people who has different opinion than you, as well as the ethnic religious music or dance depicted here (they are cult or not is beyond the point).

Communal and ecstatic aspect of dance and music of a cult is Dionysian in nature, just as the Dionysia in ancient Greek or Bacchanalia in ancient Rome. There is indeed something universal behind it because its popularity never died down throughout history, across the globe, and it manifests in many parts of human activities.

For people who prides themselves of rationality and civility, perhaps the fear and repulse they felt indicates a lack of perspective and understanding. The taste for order, precision, faithful reproduction of the score, exacting details, virtuosity, certainty, the so-called American style is also deep-rooted in metaphysical constructs such as the idea of perfection and purity, quantifiable categories and qualities (data reduction of a musical experience), a preference ordering based on quantities that can be aggregated etc.

The danger I see is the tendency to turn music into a science and engineering problem (as demonstrated by your painting example), a problem of measurements and optimization, with different objective functions representing interpretations, as if musicians can seek refuge in knowing they have past some quality test.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I'm not sure there was anything mean-spirited. Nor indeed am I American.

Nope. I'm precisely arguing that positing an ideal and somehow bringing that into the picture creates just that problem.

Are you having a bad day?


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The danger I see is the tendency to turn music into a science and engineering problem (as demonstrated by your painting example), a problem of measurements and optimization, with different objective functions representing interpretations, as if musicians can seek refuge in knowing they have past some quality test.


To be a little more helpful, the point of my painting example is to satirise the concept of thinking you can turn these matters into problems of measurements and optimisation.

The point you raise in your last paragraph is the point I was making. Perhaps a cultural difference here could be causing a misinterpretation of my intentions.

If you read the posts, you should see that one of my key points is that I don't like the idea of hypothesising an ideal and then judging "distance" from it as a way of considering these matters.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm not sure there was anything mean-spirited. Nor indeed am I American.
> 
> Nope. I'm precisely arguing that positing an ideal and somehow bringing that into the picture creates just that problem.
> 
> Are you having a bad day?


Thank you for asking. My day is going pretty well.

And I was absolutely in no way suggesting that you're an American, or that being an American is relevant to the discussion.

I was merely commenting on European vs American style of conducting (I didn't invent the terms), which is one way of looking at the debate of this thread. Since the supporters of the American style seem to be dominant, I'd like to add a few points and criticisms. I see absolutely no reason why only Americans support the American style, or why and American cannot enjoy the European style of conducting.

This is not directed to you personally, but my response to your takes is that it has an engineering flavor to it, for the reason I have pointed out. Not to say music making is not similar to a engineering problem, but that's not what art is about in my humble opinion.

I do see a lot of posts that associates Furtwangler fan with a cult, as a way to invalidate the arguments and also as an ad hominem attack. And you have done that (unless I have misinterpreted the joke), just saying.

You innuendo that my points are the products of having a bad day can also be form of ad hom argument to deflect criticism. But I think that this is a misunderstanding and you genuinely cared about my welfare. And if so, I thank you for that.



> The point you raise in your last paragraph is the point I was making. Perhaps a cultural difference here could be causing a misinterpretation of my intentions.
> 
> If you read the posts, you should see that one of my key points is that I don't like the idea of hypothesising an ideal and then judging "distance" from it as a way of considering these matters.


Thanks for clarifying. And I would like to add that, from what I have seen, that's not BH is advocating when he advocates Furtwangler's music making. BH is advocating something else which I have provided my reading of it.

Instead, that seem to be position of the critics of Furtwangler's conducting style. And in the engineering perspective, there is no hypotheses nor ideal, but an objective function to optimize (which represents interpretation). But such objective function is observationally equivalent to an implicit hypothesis or ideal, or reflects implicit hypotheses or ideals about music. Because there cannot be a rational or scientific basis for them.


----------



## Bulldog

I might as well chime in here. I don't believe in objective truth or ideal when it comes to musical performances. There is "consensus" which might have some significance once the group or groups involved are identified.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Bulldog said:


> I might as well chime in here. I don't believe in objective truth or ideal when it comes to musical performances. There is "consensus" which might have some significance once the group or groups involved are identified.


Absolutely, but that doesn't exclude the fact there could be commonalities and patterns (which is beyond the system of language) that dictates different aesthetic experiences. This is speculative but also intuitive to many people, because artistic judgement are not completely arbitrary, far from it, they exhibit more pattern than diversity.

"Object ideal" could mean very different things and we should try to understand what others mean by it instead of brushing it off as a semantic error or idiocy or BS. I am well aware of Wittgenstein's adage "we should remain silent about things outside the language system". But some do try to hint at it. Having no word to describe a musical experience is a common phenomenon.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> My understanding of what you have been saying is that your preferences relate to closeness to an objective ideal.
> 
> This means that they are not purely preferences, but are (at least in principle) susceptible to being judged by reference to how far away from the objective ideal they are.
> 
> You then get around this by suggesting that we can all have our own objective ideal. But I (and a lot of others) think that that is to misuse the word "objective"..


It's simple. "When I use a word," Brahmsianhorn said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said TalkClassical, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Brahmsianhorn, "which is to be master-that's all."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> It's simple. "When I use a word," Brahmsianhorn said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said TalkClassical, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Brahmsianhorn, "which is to be master-that's all."


This is disgusting. Tell me again, DavidA, that I am not the target of personal attack.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is disgusting. Tell me again, DavidA, that I am not the target of personal attack.


Numerous people have pointed out to you your, shall we say, _individualistic_, use of the term 'objective'. Yet you keep on using it idiosyncratically.

Language is a cooperative enterprise. You're using it uncooperatively.

How do you _expect_ people to react to this? It could be a lot worse than light-hearted satire aimed at homour. There has to be a _bit_ of entertainment in this for the rest of us, or we'd self-harm out of frustration.

:tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Numerous people have pointed out to you your, shall we say, _individualistic_, use of the term 'objective'. Yet you keep on using it idiosyncratically.
> 
> Language is a cooperative enterprise. You're using it uncooperatively.
> 
> How do you _expect_ people to react to this? It could be a lot worse than light-hearted satire aimed at homour. There has to be a _bit_ of entertainment in this for the rest of us, or we'd self-harm out of frustration.
> 
> :tiphat:


A difference of opinion over musical philosophy is no excuse for personal attack


----------



## aioriacont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A difference of opinion over musical philosophy is no excuse for personal attack


See? That's why one of the greatest bands ever, Pink Floyd, has split up
Can you imagine David Gilmour and Rick Wright having to deal with that guy everyday?
But Roger, we still love your compositions.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *A difference of opinion over musical philosophy* is no excuse for personal attack


But this is what it's precisely _not_.

It's a disgreement over use of concepts. The meaning of concepts is a wonderful case of human beings solving a coordination problem. Communication, more generally, is a process of cooperation.

You insist on using terms uncooperatively. That's just a fact. An objective fact, moreover! You're the person who insists on driving on the left-hand side of the road when everyone else expects everyone else to drive on the right.


----------



## RogerWaters

aioriacont said:


> See? That's why one of the greatest bands ever, Pink Floyd, has split up
> Can you imagine David Gilmour and Rick Wright having to deal with that guy everyday?
> But Roger, we still love your compositions.


It's a pity David was always too busy on his holidays and Rick too high on Coke to contribute in the late 1970s. So I had to take charge.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> But this is what it's precisely _not_.
> 
> It's a disgreement over use of concepts. The meaning of concepts is a wonderful case of human beings solving a coordination problem. Communication, more generally, is a process of cooperation.
> 
> You insist on using terms uncooperatively. That's just a fact. An objective fact, moreover!


Yes, how noble of you, using "human cooperation" to justify ad hominem attacks, as if that makes a fine example of human cooperation and communication.

Some concepts are difficult, some concepts are contentious, and some concepts are constantly in flux (such as those in Plato's dialogues). It is the internal tension within concepts that drive conversations and debates. If a common ground cannot be reached, then it's fine let's leave it at that. No reason to accuse people for being "uncooperative" in some fictional human project of building consistent concepts, it's not like we are on ArXiv.org discussing Riemann hypothesis.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> No reason to accuse people for being "uncooperative" in some fictional human project of building consistent concepts, it's not like we are on ArXiv.org discussing Riemann hypothesis.


I disagree. If X uses the concept 'objective' to describe his own arbitrary musical tastes; is dragged kicking and screaming to the (otherwise obvious) logical consequences of this for the normative status of _others'_, opposed, musical tastes; and then finally, after much struggle, states, in so many words, that 'objective' _has no_ logical consequences for the rightness/wrongness of others' musical tastes, at least as far as _he_ uses the concept - _then_ I think there is a very good reason to consider X uncooperative.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I disagree. If X uses the concept 'objective' to describe his own arbitrary musical tastes; is queried about the (obvious) logical consequences of this for the normative status of _others'_, opposed, musical tastes; states that 'objective' _has no_ logical consequences for the rightness/wrongness of others' musical tsates, at least as far as _he_ uses the concept; all while slipping and sliding in his discussion - _then_ I think there is a very good reason to accuse someone of being uncooperative.


As I mentioned before, this is not something so outlandish to the extent you need to summon the pitchforks. Although the term "objective" is highly questionable, BH was merely hinting at something that cannot be put into words (and hence outside the formal language system so deduction cannot be applied according to the axioms of logic). He was doing a bit of transcendental thinking.

Is that a transgression now? I thought that this is a Classical music forum not Wittgenstein's fan site.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> As I mentioned before, this is not something so outlandish to the extent you need to summon the pitchforks.


Speak for yourself. You did not put the effort in to direct the discussion to a more consistent basis so there could, potentially, have been agreement.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> BH was merely hinting at something that cannot be put into words (and hence outside the formal language system so deduction cannot be applied according to the axioms of logic). He was doing a bit of transcendental thinking.


What nonsense! If something transcends thinking, then it cannot be so much as considered let along written about.

Maybe this explains BH's entire method. His subject matter 'transcends' the mental states of us mere mortals. Squeezing the contents of his lofty musings into the dessicated bounds of _our_ linguistics concepts... how rude a request!


----------



## aioriacont

RogerWaters said:


> It's a pity David was always too busy on his holidays and Rick too high on Coke to contribute in the late 1970s. So I had to take charge.


oh well...be sure to release another solo album soon, please. 
Cheers from North Korea!


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> I disagree. If X uses the concept 'objective' to describe his own arbitrary musical tastes; is dragged kicking and screaming to the (otherwise obvious) logical consequences of this for the normative status of _others'_, opposed, musical tastes; and then finally, after much struggle, states, in so many words, that 'objective' _has no_ logical consequences for the rightness/wrongness of others' musical tastes, at least as far as _he_ uses the concept - _then_ I think there is a very good reason to consider X uncooperative.


That's an obvious mischaracterization of his views. I don't even entirely agree with his viewpoint and this is frustrating.

In so far as I understand Brahmsianhorn's perspective it is as follows: there is 'objective truth' inherent in a piece of music; conductors and musicians should seek to unveil this truth through great performance; everyone then has subjective opinions as to the degree in which the conductor and musicians succeeded in unveiling this objective truth through their performance.

In other words, never, anywhere, has he used objective to describe his own musical tastes. Never.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> If X uses the concept 'objective' to describe his own arbitrary musical tastes.


That's a lie, and you know it is a lie. Insofar as I apply the word objective to musical taste, I apply it to EVERYBODY and you know that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> That's an obvious mischaracterization of his views. I don't even entirely agree with his viewpoint and this is frustrating.
> 
> In so far as I understand Brahmsianhorn's perspective it is as follows: there is 'objective truth' inherent in a piece of music; conductors and musicians should seek to unveil this truth through great performance; everyone then has subjective opinions as to the degree in which the conductor and musicians succeeded in unveiling this objective truth through their performance.
> 
> In other words, never, anywhere, has he used objective to describe his own musical tastes. Never.


Thank you. This is what I was alluding to earlier. Some of us are engaged in a dialectic discussion. Some are engaged in some bizarre form of poster assassination where their goal is to be declared the winner. It is no different than politicians who misrepresent their opponent's platform.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> In so far as I understand Brahmsianhorn's perspective it is as follows: there is 'objective truth' inherent in a piece of music; conductors and musicians should seek to unveil this truth through great performance; everyone then has subjective opinions as to the degree in which the conductor and musicians succeeded in unveiling this objective truth through their performance.


There is objective truth 'inherent' in a representation (like 'genes are the units of biological heredity'); scientists should seek to unveil this truth through great papers; *everyone then has subjective opinions* as to the degree in which the scientist succeeded in unveling this objective truth through their papers.

As I have been blue-in-the-face about with BH himself over the course of this regrettable thread, putting 'it's just my opinion' in front of a claim about what is or is not objective truth makes no difference. If it's your opinion that a claim is objectively true, then, as a matter of the meaning of the concept 'objective truth', it should also be your opinion that opposing claims (and their supporters) are objective false.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> What nonsense! If something transcends thinking, then it cannot be so much as considered let along written about.
> 
> Maybe this explains BH's entire method. His subject matter 'transcends' the mental states of us mere mortals. Squeezing the contents of his lofty musings into the dessicated bounds of _our_ linguistics concepts... how rude a request!


Clam down. I don't see why this triggers you so much, given that almost the entire Western tradition deals with transcendental thinking (metaphysics and theology) all the way up to early 20th century, and now it's making a comeback in some certain fields of science in a different way.

Something that transcends language does not necessarily imply that thing transcends rational thinking, and something that transcends rational thinking does not imply that that thing is unthinkable, or inconceivable, or intangible. These problems are incredibly complex and it is still an area of ongoing research and debate by modern philosopher, cognitive scientists, neuroscentists, and computer scientists and physicists.

If something is conceivable but cannot be sufficiently described by language, then you can still use language to hint at it. For many people, aesthetic experience of music is like that.

You and some other forum members seem to have this strong logocentric view. That's fine, but there is no need to make such a big fuss about it, and to throw insults and spiteful innuendos. The world is unlikely to be logocentric anyway.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Clam down. I don't see why this triggers you so much.


I'm actually enjoying this part of the debate.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> given that almost the entire Western tradition deals with transcendental thinking (metaphysics and theology) all the way up to early 20th century, and now it's making a comeback in some certain fields of science in a different way


Nonesense. Never seen it Aristotle, Hume, Darwin, Spencer, Wallace, Dewey, Mill, Bentham, Smith, Faraday, Kelvin, Maxwell, Rousseau, Montesque, Voltaire, Nietzsche.... Does Plato's justification for The Forms count as transcendental thought?



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Something that transcends language does not necessarily imply that thing transcends rational thinking, and something that transcends rational thinking does not imply that that thing is unthinkable, or inconceivable, or intangible. These problems are incredibly complex and it is still an area of ongoing research and debate by modern philosopher, cognitive scientists, neuroscentists, and computer scientists and physicists.


I've been involved in analytic philosophy and cognitive science, at least, for 15 years and I've never come across things that transcend rational thinking. If they did, how could they be (rationally) communicated in peer reviwed papers? Are you thinking of Goedel etc?



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If something is conceivable but cannot be sufficiently described by language, then you can still use language to hint at it. For many people, aesthetic experience of music is like that.


What do you mean by 'conceivable but not able to be described by language'? I would seriously question whether things that can't be described by language (understood broadly to include mathematical terms) are 'conceivable'.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You and some other forum members seem to have this strong logocentric view. That's fine, but there is no need to make such a big fuss about it, and to throw insults and spiteful innuendos.


It's called avoiding non-_sense_.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The world is unlikely to be logocentric anyway


I'll go with the very concrete track-record of logic, clear thinking and empiricism, thank you very much.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

> Never seen it Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Darwin, Sepncer, Wallace, Dewey, Mill, Bentham, Smith.


It's curious that *you have never mentioned any German philosopher, nor neo-Platonists, or Christian theologians*. Since you have been involved with the analytical tradition, you must be aware that omission is glaring, since much of the point is to sorted out the supposedly "rational thinking" or "logic" in German idealism as linguistic pathologies.

Plato's work is full of transcendental thinking. Take the *cave allegory* as an example, which is exactly that we only see the *shadows on the wall (reality is tangible)* but *not the people themselves (the true reality is unknowable)*. A modern interpretation is that *we cannot observe the fundamental reality that we are embedded in but some macro-representation of it* (like matter and entropy).

In the allegory, since the shadows are two dimensional projections of a three dimensional objects, information is forever lost, in that we cannot fully describe the reality as it is, and since the observers are chained, they also *perceive the shadows from different angle (subjective experience)*, but *there is a real "objective" (abuse of term) thing casting these shadows*. Of course, we can never verify that it is the 3-dimension object that's projecting the shadow, it could be n-dimension, or there could be nothing at all.

That's why it requires transcendental thinking because there is always a gap that has to be filled by speculation. Metaphysics is by definition, thinking the unthinkable, this is basic stuff.

Also even the *idea of subject-object dichotomy resupposes the transcendental self - cogito*, which has been called into question by some modern cognitive scientists. It is more likely that the cogito does not physically exist and is merely a representation of the macro pattern of the interaction of billions of more or less autonomous neurons.



> Another load of nonsense. I've been involved in analytic philosophy and cognitive science, at least, for 10 years and I've never come across 'trascendental thinking which does not imply the thing is unthinkable'.


Of course in science people are dealing with very specialized problem in different terms but the core the problem is similar.

Since you are well-versed with the analytical philosophy, you must be aware of the Tarsky's impossibility theorem and Godel's incompleteness theorem. What Tarsky shows is that even *for formal systems you need meta language to deal with the "liar paradox"*. The truth predicate cannot be defined within the object language itself or we can always construct a Liar's paradox (fancy version of it) to violate convention T (a minimal consistency requirement).

What this means is precisely *we always need another layer of logic (metalanguage) to deal with properties of fundamental logical system*. Godel's incompleteness theorem is phrased slightly differently but also reveals the "hole" in any axiomatic system of mathematic (the vision of Russell and Whitehead's project is thus unsuccessful). If you do real science you will encounter the *"axiom of choice", or the "continuum of hypothesis", both are neither true or false (cannot be proven or disproven within mathematics), but for practical purposes, we often take them to be true anyway (transcendental thinking)*. This is already suggesting that there is more to reality than our language/rationality can full describe.

One of the great discovery in linguistics is Chomsky's generative grammar which has the implication that *we are born with certain language capabilities (such as the structure of syntax), i.e., it's genetically coded, i.e., a priori, i.e., transcendental* as in it transcend the physical experiences. Similar insight was already speculated in Kantian epistemology that certain human intellectual faculties are transcendent, *geometry or language are the a priori forms through which the reality is filtered through*. So these forms are transcendental objects from within. This points is later developed upon by Schopenhauer in his discussion of music as the will itself.

And if you have seen brain scans during *music, you know that it actives the right side of the auditory cortex rather than the left (which responds to speech)*. Also the tertiary region of the auditory cortex deals with high level processing of music. All these suggests that *musical experience is created through an a priori system that is not the language/logic system* (which is also a priori from multiple perspective I have mentioned before). You can actually cut out the left brain and you would still be experiencing music but you have almost no language capability. Phenomenologically, that experience is informative of certain truth.



> Your are sufing off the back of vague definitions of 'describe' and 'hint'. You may as well say "If something cannot be described by language in much detail, then you can still use language to describe it in low detail!


That is what I am say in plain language. This is not the place to be formal and scientific for obvious reason or I will be accused for other reasons. And *low detail description is actually all there is to human intellect*. Because physical reality is so far from our grasp. Let me give you two simple examples.

1. We have sophisticated artificial intelligence that beats the best Go player in the world. But there is almost no way of even remotely describing what it's reasoning process it. Try it! If you know something about neural networks you realizes this problem. We need to actually create consciousness for the AI to tell us what it think it is doing.

2. The fact that we have the *law of thermodynamics and entropy is because we can't really describe the physical state of a system that has a lot of particles. We just can't.* We can only describe the macro-behavior of that system which manifest as entropy. To put in your word, it's low detail description! And the fact you see physical matter is precisely because our brain cannot comprehend the reality that is quantum oscillation, or something even more fundamental. Matter itself is a low detail rendering of the reality that is quantum oscillation.

The central question in the cognitive science community is the so-called *hard problem of consciousness, which has everything to do with transcendental thinking, reality, spirituality etc *(but you need to do more thinking than checking Stanford's online encyclopedia), which I will not elaborate further.



> It's called avoiding bullshite.


Given that you are involved with cognitive science for 10 years I am surprised by your lack of interest and curiosity for human understanding and aesthetic experiences. There is always another layer of truth for every "BS", and sometimes it's more informative than it appears.


----------



## RogerWaters

[I updated my post considerably about 45 minutes before you responded to it]

Your claim, I believe, was that the entire western tradition has been steeped in transcendental thinking. This is planly false. Of course I didn't mention German Idealism or neo-platonism (at first), because I was mentioning those philosophers and scientists who didn't do 'transcendental thinking' - and there were many.

I'm not getting why you wrote so much about Goedel, thermodynamics, Chomsky and rationalism and the a priori. None of that transcends human reason: there are literally thousands of books on each topic. It's not at all what BH had in mind, so I'm not why you brought it up. There are a bunch of things which have some vague connection with 'transcending' this or that, be it experience or a first-order language. So what? I was talking to things which, as you (and BH) put it, are beyond rational thought.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The central question in the cognitive science community is the so-called *hard problem of consciousness, which has everything to do with transcendental thinking, reality, spirituality etc *(but you need to do more thinking than checking Stanford's online encyclopedia), which I will not elaborate further..


To say 'the central question' in the cog sci ocmmunity is the hard-problem of consciousness is to shift your own interests onto an entire field. Most cognitive scientisits are involve in positing internal informaiton processing abilities that might explain how infants can represent other mind or solid objects, how humans acquire language, how trauma affects this or that behaviour, how we navigate our environments, etc.

Even those cognitive scientists who _are_ into the hard problem of consiousness certaintly don't think it 'everything to do with transcendental thinking, reality, spirituality etc' - whatever _that_ means!



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am surprised by your lack of interest and curiosity for human understanding and aesthetic experiences


I am. I just don't think anything valuable will be said about it presupposing that it 'transcends' human reason.


----------



## Guest

Basically, this comes across as a row between those who think the most important thing about music is how close it gets us to 'god', the ultimate 'objective truth' for those who believe in 'god' (and Furtwangler is alleged to do this better than other conductors) and those who think that it's about the personal responses and relationships between composer, orchestra, conductor and audience, with nothing ineffable or transcendental going on (except perhaps in a metaphorical sense).

I thought this thread started off rather well, but the minute someone introduced the idea that other conductors' interpretations are superficial (with the implication that those who favour other conductors have only a superficial experience) it was doomed.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Thank you. This is what I was alluding to earlier. Some of us are engaged in a dialectic discussion. Some are engaged in some bizarre form of poster assassination where their goal is to be declared the winner. It is no different than politicians who misrepresent their opponent's platform.


Ah we have it! When you differ from other people it is 'dialectic discussion'. When people disagree with you it is 'poster assassination'. Thanks for letting us know the difference.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Your claim, I believe, was that the entire western tradition has been steeped in transcendental thinking. This is planly false.


You don't read much philosophy, do you? Or you just read them without thinking I guess? (Yes this is an ad hom)

What you think metaphysics means? Are you kidding? The subject of being, truth, beauty, goodness, first mover, eternity. These are all transcendental. Euclidean geometry and Mathematics are all transcendental. And I told you there are even leap of faith in mathematics that's even outside the axioms, which is essential for a lot of high level scientific work.

But they all use logic and rationality you say, not on first principles, you can't apply logic on first principles or premises, and there are more hidden "transcendental jumps" than you might think all over the place, of course the writers will not label them for you! Let me find an Anglo-Saxon philosopher (since Germans and the French frightens you) for you, Locke's Human Understanding has a section on it, Chapter XXXII, there you go.

Do you know what logic quantifiers are? For example, the "for all" quantifier, indicating an universal claim. You can't see you have to make certain transcendental leap to make an universal statement?



> Much of the rest of what you are saying is, I think, not a great analogy to the 'indefinable' you think BH was trying to get at. All that stuff we can talk about, however 'course-grained' it might be. If we couldn't, there wouldn't be papers and books filled with talk of it.


I don't think I see a single concrete argument that is not some dogma or preconceived notion or unjustified claims. If this is coming from someone who pride himself as a proponent of the analytical tradition, I have to say I am deeply disappointed.

If you can't connect the dots, I can't help you.



> Talking about rationalism (chomsky and evolutionary psychology) as though this is in the same leage as German Idealism, Kant and that kind of transcendentalism is really off the mark, in my opinion. None of that transcends human reason or human language: that's why there are literally thousands of books on the topics.


Just to remind you that Kant is widely regarded as one of central figure of rationalism, not idealism. At least fact check before you criticize me being "off the mark" for unknown reasons.



> Talking about rationalism (chomsky and evolutionary psychology) as though this is in the same leage as German Idealism


You think in term of leagues, on what basis? because it's German? because Analyitical good Idealism bad? because the fat book has name Hegel on it, it must be no no?

Do the champion of logic and positivism judge a book by its cover? judge an idea by it's author? judge a school of thought by it's ethnic origin? You speak as if Rationlism and Idealism are two monolithic concepts, isn't that a transcendental leap you have made implicitly?



> BH's talk of the 'objective truth' of music, which he talks about either a) not at all or b) in the vaguest terminology like 'getting at what connects us as human beings' is in a whole other leage to thermodynamics etc.


This is not a false analogy in the sense that "even fundamental physical law we held sacred can never full describe the reality", which implies that there are things we are aware of that language and logic cannot fully describe, so it's conceivable that aesthetic experience has that property as well because it happens in the right auditory cortex. (Do I need to spell out everything for you?)

So *when some random music lover post on one tiny corner of the internet passionately about his experiences, cut him some slack and be civil.*


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> I might as well chime in here. I don't believe in objective truth or ideal when it comes to musical performances. There is "consensus" which might have some significance once the group or groups involved are identified.


The objective truth surely lies in the musical score itself. Of course when comes to performing it, The notes are objective but after that an awful lot more is subjective to what the interpreter has to say about the score. The interpretation will depend on the musicality of the interpreter


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You don't read much philosophy, do you? Or you just read them without thinking I guess? (Yes this is an ad hom)
> 
> What you think metaphysics means? Are you kidding? The subject of being, truth, beauty, goodness, first mover, eternity. These are all transcendental. Euclidean geometry and Mathematics are all transcendental. And I told you there are even leap of faith in mathematics that's even outside the axioms, which is essential for a lot of high level scientific work.
> 
> But they all use logic and rationality you say, not on first principles, you can't apply logic on first principles or premises, and there are more hidden "transcendental jumps" than you might think all over the place, of course the writers will not label them for you! Let me find an Anglo-Saxon philosopher (since Germans and the French frightens you) for you, Locke's Human Understanding has a section on it, Chapter XXXII, there you go.
> 
> Do you know what logic quantifiers are? For example, the "for all" quantifier, indicating an universal claim. You can't see you have to make certain transcendental leap to make an universal statement?


You've gone off the deep end. You're now using 'transcendental' to mean... pretty much anything that can't be perceived. I for one was using the term to mean either:

1. Specifically transcendental arguments
2. What exceeds human rationality



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Just to remind you that Kant is widely regarded as one of central figure of rationalism, not idealism. At least fact check before you criticize me being "off the mark" for unknown reasons.


So what? If all of rationalism is 'transcendental' then the a priori is 'transcendental'. It might be 'transcendental' in the completely unremarkable sense of transcending human experience (lots of things transcend human experience - like numbers). But the a priori certainly doesn't transcend human reason, which is what I was reponding to (and which I stated clearly in the my last post I was reponding to).



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You think in term of leagues, on what basis? because it's German? because Analyitical good Idealism bad? because the fat book has name Hegel on it, it must be no no?
> 
> Do the champion of logic and positivism judge a book by its cover? judge an idea by it's author? judge a school of thought by it's ethnic origin? You speak as if Rationlism and Idealism are two monolithic concepts, isn't that a transcendental leap you have made implicitly?


Ranting. You are ranting!



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is not a false analogy in the sense that "even fundamental physical law we held sacred can never full describe the reality", which implies that there are things *we are aware of that language and logic cannot fully describe*, so it's conceivable that aesthetic experience has that property as well because it happens in the right auditory cortex. (Do I need to spell out everything for you?)


Of course we might be 'aware' of what language can't describe. But if language can't describe it, we can't write about it. Ergo, the idea of a 'transcendental' post on a forum is nonsense.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> So *when some random music lover post on one tiny corner of the internet passionately about his experiences, cut him some slack and be civil.*


I wasn't criticising BH's posts because he was talking passionately about his experiences. I was criticising his posts because he was being extremely uncooperative in his use of terms like 'objective'.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The objective truth surely lies in the musical score itself.


As in, 'lies buried deep within and must be uncovered'?
Or as in, 'is the score itself'?

Just checking which you mean.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> As in, 'lies buried deep within and must be uncovered'?
> Or as in, 'is the score itself'?
> 
> Just checking which you mean.


'Is the score itself.' But then the good interpreters own musicality has to be put on it. There was a conversation between Stravinsky and Colin Davies where Stravinsky told Davis he thought his tempo at a certain point was too fast. When Davis said it was the same as Stravinsky had marked in his score, Stravinsky said, "But the score is just the beginning!"


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's curious that *you have never mentioned any German philosopher, nor neo-Platonists, or Christian theologians*. [etc etc etc ]


May I ask why you have chosen to type some of your post in bold text? I find it very distracting to read.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> 'Is the score itself.' But then the good interpreters own musicality has to be put on it. There was a conversation between Stravinsky and Colin Davies where Stravinsky told Davis he thought his tempo at a certain point was too fast. When Davis said it was the same as Stravinsky had marked in his score, Stravinsky said, "But the score is just the beginning!"


So, the objective truth is somewhere in Stravinsky's head and the score is only the beginning of someone else's attempt to read his mind.


----------



## RogerWaters

MacLeod said:


> May I ask why you have chosen to type some of your post in bold text? I find it very distracting to read.


Bold text ensures your *massive *amounts of *reason *don't* transcend *the page.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> So, the objective truth is somewhere in Stravinsky's head and the score is only the beginning of someone else's attempt to read his mind.


Well if you are literalist but I guess what Stravinsky meant it was the spirit of the score rather than the absolute letter of it. What sounds best in performance. Unfortunately I cannot ask them because they have both passed on. But I thought it would've been quite obvious what he meant


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well if you are literalist but I guess what Stravinsky meant it was the spirit of the score rather than the absolute letter of it. What sounds best in performance. Unfortunately I cannot ask them because they have both passed on. But I thought it would've been quite obvious what he meant


So, we agree then.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> Well if you are literalist but I guess what Stravinsky meant it was the spirit of the score rather than the absolute letter of it. *What sounds best in performance. *Unfortunately I cannot ask them because they have both passed on. But I thought it would've been quite obvious what he meant


I'll go along with that. There are also practicalities as well as rubato.


----------



## Eclectic Al

We've ended up in quite remote territory here. I've been trying to regard this thread as a way of trying to improve my understanding of a different view from my own. I'm still struggling though.

The view is belief in the existence of "objective truth in music", which I will refer to as OT. By OT I mean something which exists outside my feelings and opinions. If OT is contingent on my own feelings or opinions then that would be a perverse use of the word objective. In this whole thread it has been a key sticking point among OT believers to deny any shift towards a subjective definition, and explorations of that boundary have got nowhere. Hence, I must take it that OT believers think that the objective aspect is critical to this. I must take others to mean what they say or there is no point in this discussion.

Now I remain unclear whether OT believers think they have insight into this OT.

If OT exists but I acknowledge that I have no insight into it, then OT is there but I know nothing about it. However, I do have my musical preferences, which I can observe, analyse and seek to justify somehow. I could claim that OT is some end point which shapes my preferences (without me having knowledge of it) and I can perhaps get a feeling for elements of it by looking at my own preferences. Fine, but I can also carry out precisely the same exercise if OT does not exist. In that case I am looking at my own preferences and gaining understanding of myself. So what difference does it make to posit OT? As far as I can see it might make me feel that what I was doing was more important, and I might find that comforting. If I'm that way inclined then a search for objective truth might seem more important than a search for the root of my personal preferences. Otherwise I can't see what it adds, and I would then be puzzled why people are so keen to argue for the importance of the concept.

By the way, it sometimes seems to be being suggested that there being a degree of consistency in people's opinions speaks for the existence of OT. I don't see that: I just see that as suggesting that there is a similarity in brain structures and in terms of our expectations as shaped by our social environment. I can't see that it points to a concept of OT at all: it points to the idea that our preferences are shaped by the realities of our existence, which do after all have much in common. Well fine, but not really an insight.

Now consider that OT exists, but I claim some insight into it. Well can I articulate that? If I cannot articulate it at all then it is sealed in my mind, and I can only communicate anything about it by telling people about my preferences. In that case my insight into OT is adding nothing for anyone else that is different from OT not existing and me telling people about my preferences.

Now we've down to OT existing, me having insight into it, and being able to articulate something about it. Well I have seen nothing on this thread to suggest that anyone here is achieving that. If it were possible then we might be onto something.

So that's my plea:

If you believe in OT in music and cannot communicate anything about it (whether you think you have insight into it or not) then please note that it adds nothing to your posts (beyond perhaps irritating others), so - as a suggestion - it might be better to avoid mentioning it.

If you believe in OT in music, and can communicate something about it, then please do so.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> You've gone off the deep end. You're now using 'transcendental' to mean... pretty much anything that can't be perceived.


If you can't handle anything complex, transcendental means a priori. I haven't changed anything. If you are exposed with the western thoughts you must know this.



RogerWaters said:


> So what? If all of rationalism is 'transcendental' then the a priori is 'transcendental'. It might be 'transcendental' in the completely unremarkable sense of transcending human experience (lots of things transcend human experience - like numbers). But it certainly doesn't transcend human reason, which is what I was reponding to (and which I stated clearly in the my last post I was reponding to).


The point is that you failed a simple fack check, which goes to show how serious you are taking this debate.

But this is an actual argument. What you said is correct, but you have made the assumption (which is transcendental) that "there is nothing but human reason a priori", which is not true. As I showed you that there is a limit and degrees of freedom for the so-called "human reason", and there are also physical realities that are not mapped by any class of formal systems that resembles "human reason", but we do know they exist (so they can be talked about in a way, but never fully satisfactorily, just like the AI and entropy example).



> Ranting. You are ranting!


Yes that was fun.



> Of course we might be 'aware' of what language can't describe. But if language can't describe it, we can't write about it. Ergo, the idea of a 'transcendental' post on a forum is nonsense.


Well you are acting according to Wittgenstein's dogma. But what you don't realize is that you are making a transcendental jump here: why can't we write about it?

In fact this forum is the living proof that we write about it all the time. When people describe their reaction to a musical experience, do the words really mean what they have experienced? Has anyone checked whether you concept of "good" is the same as my concept of "good", or have you checked which specific interval of music experience does "good" refer to? Is our memory of the musical experience the same as the experienced flow of musical experience? I can ask a hundred more questions about whether putting the experience into word is valid or not, if I scrutinize their presupposition and they can't be verified or proven.

On a fundamental level, any description of the musical experience (not the score of course) has so many holes in it, by your dogma, we should just shut up because we are constantly assuming and presupposing (again this is transcendental aspect you took for granted). But we still talk about it, and it's still meaningful, that's the point.



> I think your highly aroused state has caused you to forget very basic facts. I wasn't criticising BH's posts because he was talking passionately about his experiences. I was criticising his posts because he was being extremely uncooperative in his use of terms lile 'objective'. You get 0 points for representing your opponents accurately.


I like what you did there. Well you are making the "transcendental leap" again, you are assuming that "what you see as uncooperative and what I see as passionate as mutually exclusive things", and they aren't. The fact that BH chose those specific way to express his experience is a sign of being passionate for me, to be passionate about his experience of it is precisely not to cooperate with your unnecessary and misguided scrutiny of his logic.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> May I ask why you have chosen to type some of your post in bold text? I find it very distracting to read.


It was really meant for his convenience to read what key points he might be interested in. I agree it's a bad idea.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> The objective truth surely lies in the musical score itself. Of course when comes to performing it, The notes are objective but after that an awful lot more is subjective to what the interpreter has to say about the score. The interpretation will depend on the musicality of the interpreter


This is certainly the closest anyone in this whole thread has come to communicating an idea of objective truth in music, and the (more musical) subjective element that lies on top of that.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If you can't handle anything complex, transcendental means a priori. I haven't changed anything. If you are exposed with the western thoughts you must know this.


If you will have a look at the link I provided in my last post to you. Transcendental does not mean simply a priori, at least according to philosophers. That might be a necessary condition, but it's not a sufficient condition. You're so full of it it's ridiculous. Here's a simpler link.

Anyway, as I will say AGAIN - because it appears you can't read - I was also responding to the claim that we can talk about things which TRANSCEND HUMAN RATIONALITY. I don't buy that we can talk about such things intelligibly.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> In fact this forum is the living proof that we write about it all the time. When people describe their reaction to a musical experience, do the words really mean what they have experienced? Has anyone checked whether you concept of "good" is the same as my concept of "good", or have you checked which specific interval of music experience does "good" refer to? Is our memory of the musical experience the same as the experienced flow of musical experience? I can ask a hundred more questions about whether putting the experience into word is valid or not, if I scrutinize their presupposition and they can't be verified or proven.


Saying this forum is proof that you _can_ talk intelligibly about things which transcend human language/rationality is ridiculous. I come here for recommendations on recordings, on musical history, and much else that doesn't 'transcend human rationality'. Are you high?



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I like what you did there. Well you are making the "transcendental leap" again, you are assuming that "what you see as uncooperative and what I see as passionate as mutually exclusive things", and they aren't. The fact that BH chose those specific way to express his experience is a sign of being passionate for me, to be passionate about his experience of it is precisely not to cooperate with your unnecessary and misguided scrutiny of his logic.


What rot has taken hold of your comments.

Please note that I wish to do other things with my time than talk to you now. You make absurd claims and rant. I'm starting to sense a theme with you 'trascendentalists'.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> This is certainly the closest anyone in this whole thread has come to communicating an idea of objective truth in music, and the (more musical) subjective element that lies on top of that.


Personally, I don't think there is object truth. Music should never be about object truth. And I don't think BH meant the same thing.

Even if I entertain the idea of object truth in music, the score cannot be it, simply because it is a reductive representation of music. Some information are lost. And those information might also be contingent, or dynamic, or stochastic. It's still objective like a particle, but it's probabilistic and changing with culture and time.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> This is certainly the closest anyone in this whole thread has come to communicating an idea of objective truth in music, and the (more musical) subjective element that lies on top of that.


We hear this when you get one interpreter who plays well, all the notes but somehow the performance, though good, doesn't stick in the memory. Another interpreter plays exactly the same notes, yet their interpretation electrifies!


----------



## RogerWaters

deleted - duplicate


----------



## aioriacont

RogerWaters said:


> deleted - duplicate


as duplicate as both the final cut and pros and cons of hitchhiking albums lol


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> If you will have a look at the link I provided in my last post to you. Transcendental does not mean simply a priori, at least according to philosophers. That might be a necessary condition, but it's not a sufficient condition. You're so full of it it's ridiculous. Here's a simpler link.


I am not writing academic paper in philosophy and to use transcendental as a priori is no problem at all at this level of discussion. I don't see an argument there. I am sure there are book about how complex and nuanced such concept is. I have used it consistently throughout and clarified it. I understand that it's might appear strange to you.

Again your understanding of logic, how should I put it, still has a lot of room for improvement: "transcendental statement" is in itself a concept, not a statement, so to say that I need to provide a "sufficient condition" for a concept does not make sense.



RogerWaters said:


> Anyway, as I will say AGAIN - because it appears you can't read - I was also responding to the claim that we can talk about things which TRANSCEND HUMAN RATIONALITY. I don't buy that we can talk about such things intelligibly.


I sure can read, I have provided numerous counter arguments whereas you have provided none. To say "I don't buy ..." is not an argument.



RogerWaters said:


> Saying this forum is proof that you can talk intelligibly about things which transcend human language/rationality is ridiculous. I come here for recommendations on recordings, on musical history, and much else that doesn't 'transcend human rationality'.


And you forgot to include "to share our experiences"，there is always an element of faith and trust that is not rationally or empirically based when we voice or hear others experiences. "X is Ridiculous" is not an argument.



RogerWaters said:


> Please note that I wish to do other things with my time than talk to you. Have a good time thinking about what transcends human rationality!


And you can do whatever you like, as long as you don't throw insult, and making big claims that you "don't have time" to back up. I am not the one claiming 10 years of involvement with analytical philosophy and cognitive science and calling others BS, I am just some random dude on the internet. And I thank you for the exchange.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Personally, I don't think there is object truth. Music should never be about object truth. And I don't think BH meant the same thing.
> 
> Even if I entertain the idea of object truth in music, the score cannot be it, simply because it is a reductive representation of music. Some information are lost. And those information might also be contingent, or dynamic, or stochastic. It's still objective like a particle, but it's probabilistic and changing with culture and time.


I think we might be agreeing!! It's always hard to tell, though. I'm certainly with you that music should not be about objective truth. (As I've said in this thread before, I can't even understand what that would mean.)

The score is an objective artefact. It is indeed reductive in terms of what the composer might have been imagining, but it's an objective thing which attempts to define the piece of music within the limits of our notation. It's kind of a minimum requirement: if we ignore the score we are performing a different piece of music (- although it's quite possible it might be a better one!). The composer was aware of the notation when producing the score, so we must presume that the score is the composer's attempt to represent the piece they are conceiving, within the limits confronting them.

We then have performances. Each performance is an objective thing in its own right. (I'm enough of a believer in an objective physical world to think that, when it comes to matters such a vibrations in the air, etc.)

My reaction to that, and whether I prefer it to another performance, is subjective. It is shaped by a whole range of factors which are facts of my existence (my experiences, my hearing, etc) but my conscious feelings about the piece are definitively subjective, or I don't think anything is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

He is an ok conductor, but 76 pages of discussion? 








In my opinion he is just not that interesting. Those that aren't interested in his recordings should treat these threads as they treat his recordings - shun them with cold indifference.

(Sorry, I just wanted to say it, in tdc's style)


----------



## hammeredklavier

O how long must these Fruitless Feuds and Firestormy Fights between Fans and anti-Fans of Furtwangler continue?


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> He is an ok conductor, but 76 pages of discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion he is just not that interesting. Those that aren't interested in his recordings should treat these threads as they treat his recordings - shun them with cold indifference.
> 
> (Sorry, I just wanted to say it, in tdc's style)


I've posted extensively here, and I don't think I've ever listened to a single one of his performances. I must be mad. I certainly have no fascination with F.

Insofar as I've gained any insight into why others are fascinated, my best guess is that he is seen as a prophet intent on revealing a transcendental truth. I will now be criticised for saying that, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following a prophet if that's what floats your boat.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> My reaction to that, and whether I prefer it to another performance, is subjective. It is shaped by a whole range of factors which are facts of my existence (my experiences, my hearing, etc) but my conscious feelings about the piece are definitively subjective, or I don't think anything is.


I do think music a bit more than that. Allow me to explain.

It's never the physical conditions (or information) that constitute music, but the conscious experience of these physical conditions as something meaningful.

When 4'33 is performed, the natural background sounds suddenly enter into the consciousness flow and those random sounds are then grouped as a unit for interpretation. That's what music is, in my, opinion.

That's why I advocate for the position that music is inherently deep, because it can only exists in our consciousness (or our memory of it). And we don't really understand what consciousness is.

And I have mentioned in previous posts that brain scan shows that we process music very differently from speech/language. In fact you can still appreciate music even if your logical/language faculty is damaged (of course you can't make sense of it). But most of the low/high level processing happens in the right brain. This is apparent when you play an instrument or do a listening test, "thinking" too much will get in the way.

And the fact that many can intuitively agree on a great performance, as if we share the same experience, is indicative of some fundamental pattern behind the subjective experience.

There are experiments of identifying the purpose of folk music all over the world, and people are surprisingly good at guessing them, which again suggest certain universality.

The "true intention" of a composer is really how the composer would "hear it" in his brain, based on my (performer) model of his/her thought. Of course the more I know and study of the composer, my model has more discipline and the approximation is better. But I also need to understand from within, that is, I have to imaging how Chopin would hear this music in his head, and this requires a certain intuitive grasp of the universality behind the subjective experience of music, some are more talented than others in this respect.

That's my take and the objective/subjective debate.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Eclectic Al said:


> I've posted extensively here, and I don't think I've ever listened to a single one of his performances. I must be mad. I certainly have no fascination with F.
> 
> Insofar as I've gained any insight into why others are fascinated, my best guess is that he is seen as a prophet intent on revealing a transcendental truth. I will now be criticised for saying that, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following a prophet if that's what floats your boat.


This thread may better be transferred to the 'music(ians) and religion' part of this forum, along with the Wagner and Karajan fan-threads.

However, if I may say so, F, W and vK for that matter are considered nothing less than JC and here we have a bunch of prophets whose mission it is to convert us blasphemists to also follow their leader (or otherwise burn in :devil.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread may better be transferred to the 'music(ians) and religion' part of this forum, along with the Wagner and Karajan fan-threads.
> 
> However, if I may say so, F, W and vK for that matter are considered nothing less than JC and here we have a bunch of prophets whose mission it is to convert us blasphemists to also follow their leader (or otherwise burn in :devil.


This insistence on associating Furtwangler fans with cultist mindset is really make discussion difficult. And you are flaming it again.

I don't see how Furtwangler is that different from Cortot. Sure they can be both sloppy as hell but they definitely made incredible music. That's not even a hipster take, Furtwangler bashing is the hipster. The only big difference is that Cortot does not have big fan following whereas Furtwangler does, from all over the world.

Ultimately it comes down to the old Dionysian vs Apollonian debate. But the pitchfork and religion stuff is way overblown.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread may better be transferred to the 'music(ians) and religion' part of this forum, along with the Wagner and Karajan fan-threads.
> 
> However, if I may say so, F, W and vK for that matter are considered nothing less than JC and here we have a bunch of prophets whose mission it is to convert us blasphemists to also follow their leader (or otherwise burn in :devil.


Posts like this amuse me. Musicians - however talented - are my servants to entertain me not for me to worship them. Of course we recognise their oft-times awesome talents but as people they remain utterly fallible. And often as people more fallible than the rest of us.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I do think music a bit more than that. Allow me to explain.
> 
> It's never the physical conditions (or information) that constitute music, but the conscious experience of these physical conditions as something meaningful.
> 
> When 4'33 is performed, the natural background sounds suddenly enter into the consciousness flow and those random sounds are then grouped as a unit for interpretation. That's what music is, in my, opinion.
> 
> That's why I advocate for the position that music is inherently deep, because it can only exists in our consciousness (or our memory of it). And we don't really understand what consciousness is.
> 
> And I have mentioned in previous posts that brain scan shows that we process music very differently from speech/language. In fact you can still appreciate music even if your logical/language faculty is damaged (of course you can't make sense of it). But most of the low/high level processing happens in the right brain. This is apparent when you play an instrument or do a listening test, "thinking" too much will get in the way.
> 
> And the fact that many can intuitively agree on a great performance, as if we share the same experience, is indicative of some fundamental pattern behind the subjective experience.
> 
> There are experiments of identifying the purpose of folk music all over the world, and people are surprisingly good at guessing them, which again suggest certain universality.
> 
> The "true intention" of a composer is really how the composer would "hear it" in his brain, based on my (performer) model of his/her thought. Of course the more I know and study of the composer, my model has more discipline and the approximation is better. But I also need to understand from within, that is, I have to imaging how Chopin would hear this music in his head, and this requires a certain intuitive grasp of the universality behind the subjective experience of music, some are more talented than others in this respect.
> 
> That's my take and the objective/subjective debate.


Again, I'm not sure I disagree particularly strongly with anything you say above (even if I wouldn't put it in quite the same way), except that nothing you say makes me think that I should label my own experience of music (and my associated preferences) as anything other than subjective. Heavens, if artistic fields like music are not able to accommodate subjectivity then we're lost as individuals in any meaningful sense.

The fact that my preferences bear similarity with those of many others may indeed tell us something about likely similarities in our equipment (brains, ears, memory recall systems, etc), but that comes as no surprise.

Insofar as I am a conscious thinking being, I experience music subjectively, while being limited by the objective features of the equipment which, if you like, hosts my consciousness. I am not separate from that equipment, but my experience is not that I am only that equipment.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Again, I'm not sure I disagree particularly strongly with anything you say above (even if I wouldn't put it in quite the same way), except that nothing you say makes me think that I should label my own experience of music (and my associated preferences) as anything other than subjective. Heavens, if artistic fields like music are not able to accommodate subjectivity then we're lost as individuals in any meaningful sense.
> 
> The fact that my preferences bear similarity with those of many others may indeed tell us something about likely similarities in our equipment (brains, ears, memory recall systems, etc), but that comes as no surprise.
> 
> Insofar as I am a conscious thinking being, I experience music subjectively, while being limited by the objective features of the equipment which, if you like, hosts my consciousness. I am not separate from that equipment, but my experience is not that I am only that equipment.


What do you mean by "anything other than subjective"? It has always been subjective, and always will be subjective, but not arbitrary. The semantic is not that important.

If you experience Mozart as noise (you can and some do), then you must be missing something. That's for some is the "objective" (but I really don't think all these concepts are appropriate) part. Is this difficult to understand?

Similarly if you experience Mozart as boring (many do), then you are also missing something. If everything is "completely subjective", then how can I even suggest that.

And by that logic, difficult music ought to go because kids won't like them and it's their subjective experience, there is no point in convincing them they will experience something great in the future because there is no basis for that. The commonality matters, that's why music has universal quality.

It is the very fact that I can hear what Beethoven was hearing (only in his brain HAHA) more or less that make the experience of performing and listening so special, because it literally transcends time. For a brief moment, your consciousness (as information processing of sounds) is similar that of the Beethoven (in pure materialistic terms), which is extraordinary. I don't see why people stubbornly reject this idea.

Your reaction/reflect to the memory of that experience is the product of your rational self (those clump of neurons), which didn't fully experienced the music. So in some way a rationally formed opinion of our music experience is also not a perfect (honest) representation of your experience. You can form all sorts of weird opinions on a moderate experience.


----------



## Eclectic Al

_What do you mean by "anything other than subjective"? It has always been subjective, and always will be subjective, but not arbitrary. The semantic is not that important._

Agree the underlined bit. No comment on the rest.

_If you experience Mozart as noise (you can and some do), then you must be missing something. That's for some is the "objective" (but I really don't think all these concepts are appropriate) part. Is this difficult to understand?_

There are patterns in a composition such as one by Mozart, and I accept that normal brain function seems to recognise patterns like those. In that sense, not observing those patterns suggests a variance from normal brain function regarding pattern recognition (or an aspect of deafness). I agree you could make an objectivity claim about that. I don't think, though, that that is what people are referring to when they are describing the experience of listening to music. That would be a reductive explanation of something which is experienced richly.

_Similarly if you experience Mozart as boring (many do), then you are also missing something. If everything is "completely subjective", then how can I even suggest that._

I am not particularly a Mozart fan, but many of his pieces are not boring to me. However, if I did experience Mozart as boring, then I think the only thing I would be objectively missing would be "the characteristic of not finding Mozart boring". I think we are now really in the subjective realm. People who don't find Mozart boring could tell me I'm missing something, just as I could tell them that they are missing something if they find watching football boring. I don't think that really gets us anywhere objectively, because it is just an assertion based on subjective preference. You could argue that if I had more musical education then I might start not to find Mozart boring. That might be true or it might not, but I don't think it is relevant to the point that my finding Mozart boring would be a valid subjective experience at the time I describe it.

_And by that logic, difficult music ought to go because kids won't like them and it's their subjective experience, there is no point in convincing them they will experience something great in the future because there is no basis for that. The commonality matters, that's why music has universal quality._

That is a non-sequitur. I might believe that if I educate children in "difficult" music then many of them may come to appreciate it. That might well be true. If so then I might feel that was a worthwhile endeavour, because my subjective experience of that music has been so rich and I hope that theirs might be so too. What I have done, though, is influence the subjective feelings of a child about something by exposing them to experiences. I have not demonstrated anything objective or universal, beyond the truism that we are affected by our experiences. I could just as easily say that if I took a child to a lot of football matches and no cricket they might get to like football, whereas if I took them to a lot of cricket matches and no football they might get to like cricket. There is no requirement in that for either football or cricket to have any sort of universal quality. If anything it suggests the opposite, in that it suggests that preferences are malleable and can be trained. So maybe the universal quality you claim is that people can be influenced to like many, many things, and it is the malleability which is universal and not the nature of those things.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> I've posted extensively here, and I don't think I've ever listened to a single one of his performances. I must be mad. I certainly have no fascination with F.
> 
> Insofar as I've gained any insight into why others are fascinated, my best guess is that he is seen as a prophet intent on revealing a transcendental truth. I will now be criticised for saying that, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following a prophet if that's what floats your boat.


You have posted extensively in a thread about a conductor you have never listened to? Doesn't that beat all? :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> You have posted extensively in a thread about a conductor you have never listened to? Doesn't that beat all? :lol:


Yes. My failing is that I avoid recordings before a certain technological point. I'm not into super hifi, it's just that when I have been persuaded to listen to this or that, despite the elderly recording, I have never been able to get beyond the recording quality. The cut off seems to be around 1960. A personal deficiency, I'm sure.

Nevertheless, my interest in the thread has been connected with the general question of why people have a fascination with any figure in this field. I am aware that I generally like performances by some more than by others (although it's always good when a surprise pops up), but my interest in them beyond the performances is a long way away from what could be called a fascination, if it exists at all. That's my interest in this thread: why the fascination with the person?

It's then been bizarre that it has got so metaphysical, but I'm concluding that there is a connection: potentially those who have these fascinations are the same people as those who want to attach a higher meaning to the music they like. Their preferred performer is as a result a prophet, and the prophet is fascinating because they have a connection with an ultimate truth of some sort.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. My failing is that I avoid recordings before a certain technological point. I'm not into super hifi, it's just that when I have been persuaded to listen to this or that, despite the elderly recording, I have never been able to get beyond the recording quality. The cut off seems to be around 1960. A personal deficiency, I'm sure.
> 
> Nevertheless, my interest in the thread has been connected with the general question of why people have a fascination with any figure in this field. I am aware that I generally like performances by some more than by others (although it's always good when a surprise pops up), but my interest in them beyond the performances is a long way away from what could be called a fascination, if it exists at all. That's my interest in this thread: why the fascination with the person?
> 
> It's then been bizarre that it has got so metaphysical, but I'm concluding that there is a connection: potentially those who have these fascinations are the same people as those who want to attach a higher meaning to the music they like. *Their preferred performer is as a result a prophet, and the prophet is fascinating because they have a connection with an ultimate truth of some sort*.


It's nonsense. The performer is not a 'prophet'. He is a musician - a talented one maybe. But he interprets the music written by other even more talented human beings.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> It's nonsense. The performer is not a 'prophet'. He is a musician - a talented one maybe. But he interprets the music *written by other even more talented human being*s.


As a composer myself, I'll have to go along with that David...


----------



## premont

DavidA said:


> It's nonsense. *The performer is not a 'prophet'. *He is a musician - a talented one maybe. But he interprets the music written by other even more talented human beings.


There is at least one poster here, who compares performers to priests, well not prophets but a bit of the same:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a clear parallel between conductors and religion. Saying that one conductor is right and all the others wrong is just as silly as saying that one religion is right and all the others wrong. They are all imperfectly striving for the same objective ideal. And different ones appeal to different people in their search for the same. *In that sense, all conductors are like priests.*


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> I thought this thread started off rather well, but the minute someone introduced the idea that other conductors' interpretations are superficial (with the implication that those who favour other conductors have only a superficial experience) it was doomed.


Point to me where anyone on this thread made this claim.

Nobody on this thread has been arguing the point that only Furtwängler knows the way to truth. That is a BS straw man that certain people want to use to truncate discussion.

The point was to counter what the so-called objectivists say is Furtwängler taking liberties with the score. The point was that we are all on an individual journey in search of truth, and that the objective lies beyond the grasp of all us, certainly also beyond the grasp of those who regard the score as a clear set of finite instructions.

The composers were not gods. They were also in search of truth. That's the whole point. That's why the music was written. To touch us, to connect us. The performer must have the same goal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Insofar as I've gained any insight into why others are fascinated, my best guess is that he is seen as a prophet intent on revealing a transcendental truth. I will now be criticised for saying that, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following a prophet if that's what floats your boat.


That's demeaning and untrue, but I guess it is the sort of rationalization that helps you feel superior.

You either agree with Furtwängler's interpretations or not. He is no different than any other conductor in that respect.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> There is at least one poster here, who compares performers to priests, well not prophets but a bit of the same:


And note that I said ALL conductors


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's demeaning and untrue, but I guess it is the sort of rationalization that helps you feel superior.
> 
> You either agree with Furtwängler's interpretations or not. He is no different than any other conductor in that respect.


It's not that "I agree" with his interpretations. I can't agree with them, or disagree with them, because they make no assertion that I can agree or disagree with. It's that I like them, or respond to them positively, or prefer them to others (or I don't).

I could accept the idea that I may or may not agree with the choices that F made as being effective in delivering a performance that I respond to, and I can certainly agree that the choices F made delivered performances that you and many others respond to positively.

I could also imagine agreeing or not agreeing that the performance which F gave was faithful to the indications in the score.

I can't, though, agree or disagree with the performance itself, as it does not make a claim for me to agree with or not. I like it or I don't like it.

This is why I take the interpretation which you find demeaning. If the status of a performance is somehow linked to an unknowable truth then that just has the feeling of a religion about it. And it is customary for people who have insight into an unknowable religious truth to be referred to as prophets.

It's really not demeaning: I'm not personally religious, but I have plenty of respect for those who are. I certainly don't hold that a non-religious world view is superior to a religious one. I just haven't yet responded to a call to religious faith. Who knows, but I might do in the future. It's certainly not demeaning to suggest someone has a belief with a religious flavour to it.


----------



## millionrainbows

millionrainbows said:


> Furtwangler is one of those artists whose art is an expression of their "being." This sort of connection is really beyond dispute, IMHO.


If we look at this in Eastern terms, a conductor or artist with a fully realized "being" is not necessarily a "prophet" or "priest," but an avatar. I would say Glenn Gould was one of these avatars, as was Furtwangler.

In eastern terms, the way to "the sacred" is _within us,_ not an objective thing.

In this way, these "avatar" artists have a direct connection to "the sacred" which is an inner connection via their "being."

So, you might as well say they are prophets. Nobody here will know what you're talking about anyway, especially all those rationalist "non-believers in anything."


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> If we look at this in Eastern terms, a conductor or artist with a fully realized "being" is not necessarily a "prophet" or "priest," but an avatar. I would say Glenn Gould was one of these avatars, as was Furtwangler.
> 
> In eastern terms, the way to "the sacred" is _within us,_ not an objective thing.
> 
> In this way, these "avatar" artists have a direct connection to "the sacred" which is an inner connection via their "being."
> 
> So, you might as well say they are prophets. Nobody here will know what you're talking about anyway, especially all those rationalist "non-believers in anything."


I think that is indeed what is floating around in this thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Art is very connected to "religion" or spirituality, and always has been. All this argumentation about philosophy and definitions is essentially meaningless in the face of true genius. 

For those ultra-rationalists who believe in "nothing," their reward from art shall be "nothing."

Let them have science, objectivity, and the rational; they shall never know the miracle of true genius.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You either agree with Furtwängler's interpretations or not. He is no different than any other conductor in that respect.


Once you have been in the presence of true genius, it will be obvious what this "thing" is. Apparently, you have not.

It is an expression of the sacred, using Man's being as the vehicle. 
"Being" is a conduit to the sacred.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> Art is very connected to "religion" or spirituality, and always has been. All this argumentation about philosophy and definitions is essentially meaningless in the face of true genius.
> 
> For those ultra-rationalists who believe in "nothing," their reward from art shall be "nothing."
> 
> Let them have science, objectivity, and the rational; they shall never know the miracle of true genius.


I consider myself well-read in Eastern religions and think that I have an intuitive grasp of its concepts, yet I do not see any connections between art and spirituality. I don't know why Glenn Gould, or Furtwangler or Mahler should be spiritual. I don't hear it there. None of the religious teachers (Buddha, Christ et al) ever even mentioned music.


----------



## DavidA

premont said:


> There is at least one poster here, who compares performers to priests, well not prophets but a bit of the same:


Interesting that the same people object to when the word 'cult' is used.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Point to me where anyone on this thread made this claim.*
> 
> Nobody on this thread has been arguing the point that only Furtwängler knows the way to truth. That is a BS straw man that certain people want to use to truncate discussion.
> 
> The point was to counter what the so-called objectivists say is Furtwängler taking liberties with the score. The point was that we are all on an individual journey in search of truth, and that the objective lies beyond the grasp of all us, certainly also beyond the grasp of those who regard the score as a clear set of finite instructions.
> 
> The composers were not gods. They were also in search of truth. That's the whole point. That's why the music was written. To touch us, to connect us. The performer must have the same goal.


My dear sir, I believe it was you who made that claim, or at least implied it very strongly. You were the one who used the word 'superficial' of other conductors.


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> As a composer myself, I'll have to go along with that David...


Depends how talented you are as a composer of course, It was Bernstein who said of his music to West Side Story, "It's come up pretty fresh. Not as fresh as Mozart, but who's in that league anyway!"


----------



## Guest

BachIsBest said:


> That's an obvious mischaracterization of his views. I don't even entirely agree with his viewpoint and this is frustrating.
> 
> In so far as I understand Brahmsianhorn's perspective it is as follows: there is 'objective truth' inherent in a piece of music; conductors and musicians should seek to unveil this truth through great performance; everyone then has subjective opinions as to the degree in which the conductor and musicians succeeded in unveiling this objective truth through their performance.
> 
> In other words, never, anywhere, has he used objective to describe his own musical tastes. Never.


I generally concur with that characterization. I don't accuse Brahmsianhorn of claiming his taste aligns with the "objective truth," or whatever. My point is that the "objective truth" of the piece of music has no reality. It's not just that it can't be attained in a performance, it is that no one agrees on what the goal is. Thinking of Beethoven's fifth, first movement, Furtwangler's "objective truth" is ponderous and romantically dramatic, Karajan's is a headlong rush like a thoroughbred horse galloping, Szell's is a crystalline intersection of motifs. As they get closer to their "objective truth" of the piece they get farther apart. Of what practical use is this "objective truth?" It is pure mysticism. Some people crave mysticism, I suppose.

Another issue is that Brahmshorn has changed his tone as this "debate" has proceeded. He started with claims that Furtwangler seeks "the truth" while prosaic conductors like Szell and Toscannini merely demand their orchestras precisely execute the notes on the page.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> I consider myself well-read in Eastern religions and think that I have an intuitive grasp of its concepts, yet I do not see any connections between art and spirituality. I don't know why Glenn Gould, or Furtwangler or Mahler should be spiritual. I don't hear it there. None of the religious teachers (Buddha, Christ et al) ever even mentioned music.


The tea ceremony is an expression of spirituality. Indian master musicians like Ravi Shankar and Ali Akhbar Khan are "spiritual" and make music which has spiritual resonances.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you most certainly do not have 'an intuitive grasp of (Eastern religions') concepts. You are well-read?


----------



## hammeredklavier

NLAdriaan said:


> F, W and vK


Yeah, the "National Socialist Trio"


----------



## Eclectic Al

Baron Scarpia said:


> I generally concur with that characterization. I don't accuse Brahmsianhorn of claiming his taste aligns with the "objective truth," or whatever. My point is that the "objective truth" of the piece of music has no reality. It's not just that it can't be attained in a performance, it is that no one agrees on what the goal is. Thinking of Beethoven's fifth, first movement, Furtwangler's "objective truth" is ponderous and romantically dramatic, Karajan's is a headlong rush like a thoroughbred horse galloping, Szell's is a crystalline intersection of motifs. As they get closer to their "objective truth" of the piece they get farther apart. Of what practical use is this "objective truth?" It is pure mysticism. Some people crave mysticism, I suppose.
> 
> Another issue is that Brahmshorn has changed his tone as this "debate" has proceeded. He started with claims that Furtwangler seeks "the truth" while prosaic conductors like Szell and Toscannini merely demand their orchestras precisely execute the notes on the page.


Indeed, and for me it's precisely the differences which make life worth the journey. What a sad world if everyone looked at an incomplete recipe such as a musical score, and then listened to performances, and all agreed that Performance X is best. That's part of my objection to the "objective truth" thing. I don't believe that it exists either, but even if it did I would rather that it didn't.


----------



## millionrainbows

This accusation is said using Western religious terminology. All that has been said is simply an expression of the anti-religious views of ultra-rationalists who believe in nothing, especially the human spirit. To them, this doesn't exist.

No wonder there is no "payoff" for them. They cannot assert anything; They can only deny. I call that "rationalist nihilism."

Meanwhile, the rest of us "believers" in Humanity's potential to tap-in to the sacred will continue to reap the benefits of the great art which has been produced by these geniuses.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed, and for me it's precisely the differences which make life worth the journey. What a sad world if everyone looked at an incomplete recipe such as a musical score, and then listened to performances, and all agreed that Performance X is best. That's part of my objection to the "objective truth" thing. I don't believe that it exists either, but even if it did I would rather that it didn't.


I can see some utility in the idea if Furtwangler needs his notion of "objective truth" of the piece to wind himself up to create an an inspired interpretation. That is his psychology. Probably Toscanini needs the notion of "objective truth" to motivate himself to verbally abuse and humiliate orchestral musicians. Maybe without "objective truth" he would have had human decency. It cuts both ways.


----------



## Barbebleu

I’m bored. I’m going to start a new thread. “Explain the fascination with this thread and it’s lack of relevance anymore to Furtwängler?” Anyone fancy it?:lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

And I see that Becca, the instigator, last posted on 18 May on her own thread! Can hardly blame her. It went off-piste somewhat a fair while ago.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed, and for me it's precisely the differences which make life worth the journey. What a sad world if everyone looked at an incomplete recipe such as a musical score, and then listened to performances, and all agreed that Performance X is best. That's part of my objection to the "objective truth" thing. I don't believe that it exists either, but even if it did I would rather that it didn't.


That's not the way it's going to pan out. The performances will not be judged as "objective things" which can be compared to other "objective things." 
Rather each performance, each accomplishment, will be experienced as a unique expression of the "being" and spirit of the artists in question. This is art, not television ratings.

Whatever you can't perceive does not negate it. Whatever you can't perceive is your own blind spot. In this sense, it doesn't matter to anyone.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed, and for me it's precisely the differences which make life worth the journey. What a sad world if everyone looked at an incomplete recipe such as a musical score, and then listened to performances, and all agreed that Performance X is best. That's part of my objection to the "objective truth" thing. I don't believe that it exists either, but even if it did I would rather that it didn't.


How many times do I have to repeat that we never reach the ideal? How many times?


----------



## millionrainbows

To me, it's tragic how many ultra-rationalists are out there, ready to deny everyone's humanity in favor of a lifeless, meaningless rationality which is anti-everything.


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, that's correct, there is no "ideal" and we will never reach it. Now it's time to replace it with something worthwhile instead of incessant negation.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> To me, it's tragic how many ultra-rationalists are out there, ready to deny everyone's humanity in favor of a lifeless, meaningless rationality which is anti-everything.


rationality is a necessary steping stone on a spiritual path to enlightenment. You are still at the very beginning, so you can't know


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> I generally concur with that characterization. I don't accuse Brahmsianhorn of claiming his taste aligns with the "objective truth," or whatever. My point is that the "objective truth" of the piece of music has no reality. It's not just that it can't be attained in a performance, it is that no one agrees on what the goal is. Thinking of Beethoven's fifth, first movement, Furtwangler's "objective truth" is ponderous and romantically dramatic, Karajan's is a headlong rush like a thoroughbred horse galloping, Szell's is a crystalline intersection of motifs. As they get closer to their "objective truth" of the piece they get farther apart. Of what practical use is this "objective truth?" It is pure mysticism. Some people crave mysticism, I suppose.
> 
> Another issue is that Brahmshorn has changed his tone as this "debate" has proceeded. He started with claims that Furtwangler seeks "the truth" while prosaic conductors like Szell and Toscannini merely demand their orchestras precisely execute the notes on the page.


Nope, absolutely false. I have repeatedly stated that the so-called objectivists are just as subjective as anybody. I also have stated that even attempting to play objectively is still subjective insofar as it represents a choice.

Everyone has their variation on the truth. The more personal and passionate it is, regardless of the technical differences, the more interesting it is.

This debate proves the point. Each of us has our own variation on the truth. None of us knows who is right. That's part of the fun.

But if there was no such thing as truth, in the abstract, we wouldn't be doing this.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> My dear sir, I believe it was you who made that claim, or at least implied it very strongly. You were the one who used the word 'superficial' of other conductors.


Yes, I did state that Karajan's preoccupation with beauty often strikes me as superficial. Others have stated that Furtwängler's search for profundity in every note takes away the mystery and makes things too obvious. We can all disagree on whose interpretation works better.

What I did NOT say is that only Furtwängler follows a path towards truth. He pursues his version, and others pursue theirs. We are all free to disagree on which path resonates more with our liking.

But as I said before, it is also false to paint me as someone who critiques in such absolutist terms to begin with. There are some works in which I might prefer Conductor X to Conductor Y


----------



## Duncan

Barbebleu said:


> And I see that Becca, the instigator, last posted on 18 May on her own thread! Can hardly blame her. It went off-piste somewhat a fair while ago.


She's actually here every day... Reading the comments... sighing in exasperation... shaking her head in disgust... laughing uproariously... quietly chuckling... Typical Becca behaviour... everything except "snorting in derision"... She is English after all and I'm fairly certain that the English as rule tend to forswear "snorting" whether in derision or just in general...

This post just pushed the page count to 80... I should win something...


----------



## Barbebleu

How about “explain the fascination with wandering off-topic?” as a thread?


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread may better be transferred to the 'music(ians) and religion' part of this forum, along with the Wagner and Karajan fan-threads.
> 
> However, if I may say so, F, W and vK for that matter are considered nothing less than JC and here we have a bunch of prophets whose mission it is to convert us blasphemists to also follow their leader (or otherwise burn in :devil.


Another mean-spirited sally by NLAdriaan with no other purpose than to denigrate other members and their interests. This is pure trolling.

This thread may be criticized for having sunk under a truckload of verbosity - the issues raised by Furtwangler's art are far easier to understand than much of what's been written here - but no contributor to it is a "prophet" seeking to "convert" anyone to anything.

Given the consistency with which you pounce on certain composers and performers and the people here who enjoy their work - particularly when the music in question is German - I'd say that the only person with a "mission" is you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I was thinking the other day about which Furtwangler recordings are easiest to appreciate without having to account too much for sound quality.

The first one which occurs to me, ironically, is the 1944 VPO Bruckner 8th. It really is well recorded for the date. I don't know whether it was live or recorded in an empty hall, for there is no sign of an audience. It is arguably his greatest interpretation of any work. So intense and probing. A desert island recording for me. There is a good inexpensive transfer of it from Musical Concepts.






The next one might strike some as an odd choice, but the 1953 BPO Beethoven 8th is very well recorded and shows his gifts for pacing, shaping, and phrasing. The 8th really emerges powerfully. It's available on DG coupled with his equally excellent 7th.






And then I would go back to one mentioned earlier, the 1951 NDR Brahms 1st. A very present recording and a uniquely powerful rendition, paced in a way that really brings out the drama.


----------



## aioriacont

I really prefer Furtwängler as Francis Dolarhyde in Manhunter, though Ralph Fiennes also did a good job portraying this character in Red Dragoon.


----------



## Barbebleu

aioriacont said:


> I really prefer Furtwängler as Francis Dolarhyde in Manhunter, though Ralph Fiennes also did a good job portraying this character in Red Dragoon.


I don't recall Francis being in the cavalry!:lol:


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was thinking the other day about which Furtwangler recordings are easiest to appreciate without having to account too much for sound quality.
> 
> The first one which occurs to me, ironically, is the 1944 VPO Bruckner 8th. It really is well recorded for the date. I don't know whether it was live or recorded in an empty hall, for there is no sign of an audience. It is arguably his greatest interpretation of any work. So intense and probing. A desert island recording for me. There is a good inexpensive transfer of it from Musical Concepts.


I agree - a terrific transfer of a fabulous recording. It sounds like something from at least a decade later.

Another one would be my first Furtwangler recording - the standalone Walkure with the VPO. It may not have quite the frisson of WF's live performances of the opera, and some of the singing is less than ideal, but the orchestra and sonics are immeasurably superior, and there's a rightness about WF's pacing of the entire opera that isn't matched by anyone else's.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Yes, I did state that *Karajan's preoccupation with beauty often strikes me as superficial*. Others have stated that Furtwängler's search for profundity in every note takes away the mystery and makes things too obvious. We can all disagree on whose interpretation works better.
> 
> What I did NOT say is that only Furtwängler follows a path towards truth. He pursues his version, and others pursue theirs. We are all free to disagree on which path resonates more with our liking.
> 
> But as I said before, it is also false to paint me as someone who critiques in such absolutist terms to begin with. There are some works in which I might prefer Conductor X to Conductor Y


Why do we have to repeat these meaningless phrases?


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I agree - a terrific transfer of a fabulous recording. It sounds like something from at least a decade later.
> 
> Another one would be my first Furtwangler recording - the standalone Walkure with the VPO. It may not have quite the frisson of WF's live performances of the opera, and *some of the singing is less than ideal*, but the orchestra and sonics are immeasurably superior, and there's a rightness about WF's pacing of the entire opera that isn't matched by anyone else's.


Some of the singing? You mean most of it!


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> Another one would be my first Furtwangler recording - the standalone Walkure with the VPO. It may not have quite the frisson of WF's live performances of the opera, and some of the singing is less than ideal, but the orchestra and sonics are immeasurably superior, and there's a rightness about WF's pacing of the entire opera that isn't matched by anyone else's.


The singers have kept me away from that recording for decades, but it was one of my first Furtwangler recordings too. I really should give it another spin.

My first Furtwangler was the EMI _Tristan._ Anyone who cares about the opera should hear it. Particularly in Act 2, the Furtwangler magic is on full display: the nocturnal spell he weaves in the prelude and opening scene, the cumulative power of the music's successive waves of passion, the time-without-end feeling of the love duet, the ardor and raptness of Brangaene's warning - it's all exquisite and unequaled by any other conductor.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was thinking the other day about which Furtwangler recordings are easiest to appreciate without having to account too much for sound quality.
> 
> The first one which occurs to me, ironically, is the 1944 VPO Bruckner 8th. It really is well recorded for the date. I don't know whether it was live or recorded in an empty hall, for there is no sign of an audience. It is arguably his greatest interpretation of any work. So intense and probing. A desert island recording for me. There is a good inexpensive transfer of it from Musical Concepts.


Judging from the first 30 seconds, the liberties he takes with tempo are astonishing to a modern ear. I think it was not out of the ordinary in those days. I remember listening to a Schnabel/Barbirolli recording of Mozart PC 27 and hearing similar effects, just slowing to a stop at the end of a phrase, then resuming. Doesn't resonate with me.

One Furtwangler recording I really enjoy is the Beethoven Grosse Fuge, WPO. It is a recording that I have in an anniversary edition of live WPO recordings that DG issued maybe around 1990.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was thinking the other day about which Furtwangler recordings are easiest to appreciate without having to account too much for sound quality.
> 
> The first one which occurs to me, ironically, is the 1944 VPO Bruckner 8th. It really is well recorded for the date. I don't know whether it was live or recorded in an empty hall, for there is no sign of an audience. It is arguably his greatest interpretation of any work. So intense and probing. A desert island recording for me. There is a good inexpensive transfer of it from Musical Concepts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next one might strike some as an odd choice, but the 1953 BPO Beethoven 8th is very well recorded and shows his gifts for pacing, shaping, and phrasing. The 8th really emerges powerfully. It's available on DG coupled with his equally excellent 7th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then I would go back to one mentioned earlier, the 1951 NDR Brahms 1st. A very present recording and a uniquely powerful rendition, paced in a way that really brings out the drama.


I would add the early 50's Schumann 4th, a blindingly intense reading of a tough symphony to get right. Also his Schubert 9 from around the same time even though some say the wartime version is more intense (I haven't done enough comparison to know for sure).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Eclectic Al said:


> I've posted extensively here, and I don't think I've ever listened to a single one of his performances. I must be mad. I certainly have no fascination with F.
> 
> Insofar as I've gained any insight into why others are fascinated, my best guess is that he is seen as a prophet intent on revealing a transcendental truth. I will now be criticised for saying that, but I'm not saying there is anything wrong with following a prophet if that's what floats your boat.


If you'd like, then just wipe your mind of every impression of Furtwangler you might have received in this thread and just listen for yourself. Regardless of how you hear him, all music lovers need to at least give his Beethoven, Bruckner, and Brahms a fair shot.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> Judging from the first 30 seconds, the liberties he takes with tempo are astonishing to a modern ear. I think it was not out of the ordinary in those days.


Given that the Bruckner 8th was composed in Furtwängler's lifetime, would it not stand to reason that the modern ear could stand to learn a thing or two from these "liberties?"


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If you'd like, then just wipe your mind of every impression of Furtwangler you might have received in this thread and just listen for yourself. Regardless of how you hear him, all music lovers need to at least give his Beethoven, Bruckner, and Brahms a fair shot.


Indeed. That's my plan. It would be unreasonable not to.


----------



## Guest

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I would add the early 50's Schumann 4th, a blindingly intense reading of a tough symphony to get right. Also his Schubert 9 from around the same time even though some say the wartime version is more intense (I haven't done enough comparison to know for sure).


Brings to mind another great Schumann 4th, Cluytens, French Radio Symphony, 1950. Magnificent performance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Also his Schubert 9 from around the same time even though some say the wartime version is more intense (I haven't done enough comparison to know for sure).


My favorite is the live 1953 BPO. Has more intensity than the studio but is much better recorded than the wartime and is better proportioned IMO. Usually paired with his equally great Schubert 8th. There is a single Tahra disc with both of these, but hard to find. Otherwise Audite offers it in their excellent box set of live postwar WF BPO.

The final two minutes offers a great sampling.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Given that the Bruckner 8th was composed in Furtwängler's lifetime, would it not stand to reason that the modern ear could stand to learn a thing or two from these "liberties?"


I don't know if that is such a strong argument. The people who lived in Bruckner's lifetime also produced corrupted editions of Bruckner's work in which they edited out "superfluous" parts "fixed" his orchestration and harmonies, etc. Appreciation of Bruckner's legacy came later.

Looking at my collection, it turns out I have a Furtwangler recording of Bruckner's 8th from 1949, Berliner Philharmoniker (EMI Electrola) and part of a collection of very old Bruckner recordings. Maybe I should give a listen at some point.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Why do we have to repeat these meaningless phrases?


It's not meaningless. Karajan was preoccupied with the "beauty" of sound of the orchestra, which is well known. It shows in the recordings, just like Stokowski's obsession with big organ sonority. He even doubled the horns for his Brahms.

It is also meaningful to say that such obsession is "superficial", in the same way that a painter whose primary concern is the color of expensive pigments or the realism of fabric details strikes people as superficial. Because he/she is less concerned with creating ideas or meanings than with hitting some obviously extraneous target.

Superficial is not in itself a bad thing. Impressionism is deliberately "superficial" and the table can be turned once people realize how big of a statement that is.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not meaningless. Karajan was preoccupied with the "beauty" of sound of the orchestra, which is well known. It shows in the recordings, just like Stokowski's obsession with big organ sonority. He even doubled the horns for his Brahms.
> 
> It is also meaningful to say that such obsession is "superficial", in the same way that a painter whose primary concern is the color of expensive pigments or the realism of fabric details strikes people as superficial. Because he/she is less concerned with creating ideas or meanings than with hitting some obviously extraneous target.
> 
> Superficial is not in itself a bad thing. Impressionism is deliberately "superficial" and the table can be turned once people realize how big of a statement that is.


It is nonsense to say that getting an orchestra to make beautiful sounds is superficial. I am sure you don't know what you are talking about when you say it.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not meaningless. Karajan was preoccupied with the "beauty" of sound of the orchestra, which is well known. It shows in the recordings, just like Stokowski's obsession with big organ sonority. He even doubled the horns for his Brahms.
> 
> It is also meaningful to say that such obsession is "superficial", in the same way that a painter whose primary concern is the color of expensive pigments or the realism of fabric details strikes people as superficial. Because he/she is less concerned with creating ideas or meanings than with hitting some obviously extraneous target.
> 
> Superficial is not in itself a bad thing. Impressionism is deliberately "superficial" and the table can be turned once people realize how big of a statement that is.


It is nonsense to say that getting an orchestra to make beautiful sounds is superficial. I am sure you don't know what you are talking about when you say it.


----------



## aioriacont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My favorite is the live 1953 BPO. Has more intensity than the studio but is much better recorded than the wartime and is better proportioned IMO. Usually paired with his equally great Schubert 8th. There is a single Tahra disc with both of these, but hard to find. Otherwise Audite offers it in their excellent box set of live postwar WF BPO.


I love this version! Thanks for this.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not meaningless. Karajan was preoccupied with the "beauty" of sound of the orchestra, which is well known. It shows in the recordings, just like Stokowski's obsession with big organ sonority. He even doubled the horns for his Brahms.


Many things which are "well known" are not so.

Karajan was focused on sonority to an extent which was new. He didn't always want it "pretty." Sometimes he wanted it harsh and menacing, but harsh and menacing in a controlled way. An example that comes to mind is the opening of Dvorak's New World Symphony (EMI, 70's). In the passage when the quiet opening is disrupted by an outburst from unison strings, then timpani, the sonority is anything but pretty. It sounds like they are going to break their poor fiddles in that passage.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> It is nonsense to say that getting an orchestra to make beautiful sounds is superficial. *I am sure you don't know what you are talking about when you say it.*


Why not treat opinions with respect and simply give your counter opinion as opposed to asserting over who has authority and who does not?

There are times I like Karajan's beauty of sound - Grieg, Sibelius, Debussy. And I like his Beethoven too, especially when I am in the mood for a more Furtwanglerian-like interpretation in better sound.

I am not saying Karajan was a one-trick pony. I was just responding to your objection over using the word "superficial." Some people describe Furtwangler as clumsy, sloppy, and, what was that one Heck used? Oh yeah, "portentous." To each their own. I wish we had more interesting choices today instead of what comes across to me as people afraid to stick out by being too individual.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> It is nonsense to say that getting an orchestra to make beautiful sounds is superficial. I am sure you don't know what you are talking about when you say it.


These are just empty claims. I don't even need to know anything about orchestration or conducting practice to see the meaning behind such claim.

You think beauty of sound is very important, well some don't, and they expresses it as superficial. Glenn Gould definitely don't think the beauty of sound of piano is that important; Klemperer definitely don't think the beauty of sound of the orchestra is that important.

And if you into Eastern aesthetics, these ideas are dominant, and manifest in Wabisabi (seeking the inner beauty in the austere and imperfection), a rough cracked clay bowl of fisherman is deemed as a epitome of Wabisabi beauty.

To make such statement is perfectly meaningful, you don't have to agree with it. Instead of invalidating their statement as nonsense, you could make a case. But you seem too caught up in your narrow view to do that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> Looking at my collection, it turns out I have a Furtwangler recording of Bruckner's 8th from 1949, Berliner Philharmoniker (EMI Electrola) and part of a collection of very old Bruckner recordings. Maybe I should give a listen at some point.


I have that next to my player right now as I was going to sample Kabasta's 7th. That's a good 8th, but no comparison IMO to the 1944.


----------



## Duncan

Barbebleu said:


> How about "explain the fascination with wandering off-topic?" as a thread?


A way to get back on topic to the actual recordings themselves would be to switch over to this thread -

Best and Worst Recordings: Furtwängler

It's both informative and entertaining...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Baron Scarpia said:


> Many things which are "well known" are not so.
> 
> Karajan was focused on sonority to an extent which was new. He didn't always want it "pretty." Sometimes he wanted it harsh and menacing, but harsh and menacing in a controlled way. An example that comes to mind is the opening of Dvorak's New World Symphony (EMI, 70's). In the passage when the quiet opening is disrupted by an outburst from unison strings, then timpani, the sonority is anything but pretty. It sounds like they are going to break their poor fiddles in that passage.


I agree with your assessment. But it is fair to say Karajan put a lot of extra effort into the appearance of "sound". They worked wonderfully most of the time for me. His Dvorak 9th has always been excellent since his PO periods. But I would prefer WF's Brahms over Karajan even though they sound far superior.

I was merely make a point that "Karajan's sound seems superficial" is a perfectly meaningful statement (maybe not be a correct one), and an impression resonates with many people.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Duncan said:


> A way to get back on topic to the actual recordings themselves would be to switch over to this thread -
> 
> Best and Worst Recordings: Furtwängler
> 
> It's both informative and entertaining...


To be fair, "explain the fascination with" is kind of a loaded question. It reminds me of when my dad once asked me regarding my wife, "What do you see in her?" He saw it as a simple curious question. I saw it as insulting to both me and my wife.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I was merely make a point that "Karajan's sound seems superficial" is a perfectly meaningful statement (maybe not be a correct one), and an impression resonates with many people.


It resonates with me, so I'll gladly affirm that you do know what you're talking about. I've found Karajan's sonic sensuality enjoyable at times, and not at others. "Superficial" seems a reasonable description for those instances where I'm distracted by sonority from musical meanings I'd rather focus on.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree with your assessment. But it is fair to say Karajan put a lot of extra effort into the appearance of "sound". They worked wonderfully most of the time for me. His Dvorak 9th has always been excellent since his PO periods. But I would prefer WF's Brahms over Karajan even though they sound far superior.
> 
> I was merely make a point that "Karajan's sound seems superficial" is a perfectly meaningful statement (maybe not be a correct one), and an impression resonates with many people.


Since we are agreeing, mostly, perhaps I should leave it at that, but another example entered my head. Karajan's '65 recording of the Schubert Unfinished (DG). Coda of the first movement contains a loud passage mostly for strings. You can analyze it in terms of functional dissonance, appoggiaturas, suspensions, etc. Karajan used sonority to reinforce his interpretation of it, creating a uniquely harrowing, ghostly string tone which I found striking. I can see him in my mind's eye at rehearsal. "Stop! Press harder with the bow, slower, and closer to the bridge. And you, cellos, what's with that vibrato. You think this is a Strauss Waltz for your grandmother? She should wet herself when she hears this! Again, play like a shriek from hell!"

Ok, there was a lot of poets licensee there.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> It resonates with me, so I'll gladly affirm that you do know what you're talking about. I've found Karajan's sonic sensuality enjoyable at times, and not at others. "Superficial" seems a reasonable description for those instances where I'm distracted by sonority from musical meanings I'd rather focus on.


Exactly, it's a very simple observation.

In a similar way, you cannot be virtuostic when you play Mozart or Schubert's piano sonata. Yes you have demonstrated your tremendous running skills and techniques that conjure up myriad of colors, but that only distract the listener from hearing the import stuff: the humor, the balance, and the poetry. It only goes show the audience that you understanding of the works is "superficial" because you put the focus on the things that is not specific to the work. If you play Chopin then it's almost required to display the color and resonance of the piano. A monochromatic Chopin would be perverse.

How is orchestral playing any different?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Baron Scarpia said:


> I can see him in my mind's eye at rehearsal. "Stop! Press harder with the bow, slower, and closer to the bridge. And you, cellos, what's with that vibrato. You think this is a Strauss Waltz for your grandmother? She should wet herself when she hears this! Again, play like a shriek from hell!"
> 
> Ok, there was a lot of poets licensee there.


Thanks for recommendation, I will look into it. That picture seems more like Toscanini for me. From the rehearsal video (Schumann's 4th) I've watch and things I have read, Karajan's so-call "tyrant" persona is a myth (at least partially). He was no Bruno Walter but he was no more tyrannical than you regular maestro during that period. He just had clear visions and was very serious about his music making.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thanks for recommendation, I will look into it. That picture seems more like Toscanini for me. From the rehearsal video (Schumann's 4th) I've watch and things I have read, Karajan's so-call "tyrant" persona is a myth (at least partially). He was no Bruno Walter but he was no more tyrannical than you regular maestro during that period. He just had clear visions and was very serious about his music making.


I hope the recording matches my memory.

I'm not imaging Karajan saying it with a tyrannical tone. I'm imagining his charming, professorial tone. I'm actually thinking of that Schumann 4 rehearsal video (which was staged, of course). I seem to remember him stopping the orchestra repeatedly, giving the string players detailed instructions on their bowing, and telling the violins, "it is all doom and gloom and this note is the ray of light."

I remember an interview with a trombone player from the Philharmonia (which appeared in the linear notes of an EMI CD) describing a rehearsal for Don Juan (Strauss). He described how Karajan started with a dramatic swoop and the trombone player didn't quite get the beat and came in late on the opening phrase. Karajan didn't have a Toscanini style fit. He just gave the trombone player a look which conveyed, "This is your job. Do you expect me to to beat time for you like a kappelmeister?"


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^that's a good one :lol:


----------



## annaw

Baron Scarpia said:


> Many things which are "well known" are not so.
> *
> Karajan was focused on sonority to an extent which was new. He didn't always want it "pretty."* Sometimes he wanted it harsh and menacing, but harsh and menacing in a controlled way. An example that comes to mind is the opening of Dvorak's New World Symphony (EMI, 70's). In the passage when the quiet opening is disrupted by an outburst from unison strings, then timpani, the sonority is anything but pretty. It sounds like they are going to break their poor fiddles in that passage.


It was certainly important to him. In his interview about Karajan, Rattle said that when Karajan was rehearsing Strauss' Don Quixote with Rostropovich he asked him: "Sometimes you are making ugly sounds but why are you making ugly sounds?" Rostropovich answered that because this is a terrible situation and it must be ugly. Karajan answered that "you must never make ugly sounds, every sound must be beautiful".

I'm personally rather fond of Karajan (not difficult to tell I suppose) because he made many very wonderful recordings - many great opera recordings, his Bruckner, Beethoven, Strauss... I think his focus on beauty and legato! legato! legato! was a great fit for some pieces but surely not all of them. It wasn't his essence though, there are many things that made his conducting stand out. I do not say that he approached everything similarly, certainly not.

I love Furtwängler's conducting as well although I have so far only heard a few recordings. But, his _Tristan_ is one of my favourite opera recordings!


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> It was certainly important to him. In his interview about Karajan, Rattle said that when Karajan was rehearsing Strauss' Don Quixote with Rostropovich he asked him: "Sometimes you are making ugly sounds but why are you making ugly sounds?" Rostropovich answered that because this is a terrible situation and it must be ugly. Karajan answered that "you must never make ugly sounds, every sound must be beautiful".
> 
> I'm personally rather fond of Karajan (not difficult to tell I suppose) because when he made many very wonderful recordings - many great opera recordings, his Bruckner, Beethoven, Strauss... I think his focus on beauty and legato! legato! legato! was a great fit for some pieces but surely not all of them. It wasn't his essence though, there are many things that made his conducting stand out. I do not say that he approached everything similarly, certainly not.
> 
> I love Furtwängler's conducting as well although I have so far only heard a few recordings. But, his _Tristan_ is one of my favourite opera recordings!


Well, you are right, of course, but beautiful isn't always pretty. It is the claim that he supposedly made everything sound the same that doesn't ring true.

Now I am remembering a scene from another Karajan video where he instructs the orchestra, "you must make the last note very beautiful, or it just drops like a sack of coal."


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> It was certainly important to him. In his interview about Karajan, Rattle said that when Karajan was rehearsing Strauss' Don Quixote with Rostropovich he asked him: "Sometimes you are making ugly sounds but why are you making ugly sounds?" Rostropovich answered that because this is a terrible situation and it must be ugly. Karajan answered that "you must never make ugly sounds, every sound must be beautiful".
> 
> I'm personally rather fond of Karajan (not difficult to tell I suppose) because when he made many very wonderful recordings - many great opera recordings, his Bruckner, Beethoven, Strauss... I think his focus on beauty and legato! legato! legato! was a great fit for some pieces but surely not all of them. It wasn't his essence though, there are many things that made his conducting stand out. I do not say that he approached everything similarly, certainly not.
> 
> I love Furtwängler's conducting as well although I have so far only heard a few recordings. But, his _Tristan_ is one of my favourite opera recordings!


I think that this is getting to the key point. Beauty is not superficial. The word for that is "pretty". If I think a ragged sound is right then that is beauty for me. If I am a satanist and believe in torturing people in worship of the devil then beauty is in their pain. If I am empathetic with the suffering of the Soviet people under a Marxist dictatorship then the angst in Shostakovich is beauty. Beauty often needs to convey the feeling that it was earned though challenge, as a resolution.

It may be true that beauty can often be pretty, but not necessarily. I think that Karajan was after beauty, not prettiness. It's just that they are often the same, as beauty is, if you like, the transcendent version of prettiness. BTW, I would like to think that all conductors (and composers) are seeking beauty in this sense - and to seek beauty is never superficial.

What I find superficial is to laud a lack of precision in playing or a failure in intonation, as beautiful in itself as though it somehow indicates depth. No, it indicates failure in execution. It may result from chasing an interpretation which is more difficult to realise, but in itself it is only meaningful if it was intended. (Also, BTW, not suggesting at all that F was seeking any sort of superficiality, and the reference to HvK is only because he was raised.)


----------



## Eclectic Al

Baron Scarpia said:


> Well, you are right, of course, but beautiful isn't always pretty. It is the claim that he supposedly made everything sound the same that doesn't ring true.
> 
> Now I am remembering a scene from another Karajan video where he instructs the orchestra, "you must make the last note very beautiful, or it just drops like a sack of coal."


Not sure if we're agreeing or not here. But certainly we're agreeing that beauty and prettiness are different things.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I think that this is getting to the key point. Beauty is not superficial. The word for that is "pretty". If I think a ragged sound is right then that is beauty for me. If I am a satanist and believe in torturing people in worship of the devil then beauty is in their pain. If I am empathetic with the suffering of the Soviet people under a Marxist dictatorship then the angst in Shostakovich is beauty. Beauty often needs to convey the feeling that it was earned though challenge, as a resolution...


There is aesthetic beauty (which can be ugly and unfined), beauty of sound (which can be unpleasant), and pretty sound.

When something is superficial it means it's related to appearances instead of deeper qualities like meaning (which must be inferred from non sensory human faculty).

My interpretation of Annaw's Karajan anecdotal is the the opposite: Rostropovich was concerned with meaning, which is deep whereas Karajan made the artistic choice of not going for it, but to go for the beauty of sound, regardless of what the sound means in the context of the Don Quixote, which is more or less "superficial".

Of course the Maestro might have deep reason for his dogma that we don't know, or maybe he didn't, he just like to make beautiful sound regardless of the meaning of the work. And that for many people, comes off as being "superficial".

It's the same when it comes to piano playing, virtuoso such as Lang Lang that has astonishing techniques sometimes come off as superficial because you don't hear the music, you hear his techniques. This is fine for Liszt but may be unbearable for Chopin.

There is one anecdote I loosely remember about Schnabel talking about why he played pianissimo when the the score say double forte in one of Beethoven's piano sonata. He said that the pianissimo created greater effect than the double forte which was why there double forte was there in the first place. That way of thinking is not superficial, but deep. To say that the performance is bad because he didn't play according to the score is superficial. Right or wrong has nothing to do with this.

Nobody serious about the music ever laud the lack of precision or failure in intonation. It's a matter of priority. Rehearsal time is a limited resources. You can always spend more effort on perfecting sound or precision, make it 99.99% faithful instead of 99.9%. Listener's attention is also limited. Performer should prioritize what the listeners intend to experience, do you have something to say through the music, or do you want them to have a good time with the "beautiful sound".

If the only experience you get from a concert is that "the sound was so beautiful" or "he played the cadenza really fast", then it is superficial in a way, because the actual music becomes irrelevant.

I can always practice 10 hours of scales each day to be more technically assured. But for many people, that's not what music should be about. If one can play the notes 95% correct, then it is more worthwhile to say something about the Tempest sonata than practicing 10 hours a day for scales and arpeggios or wrist techniques or whatever to improve my margin for error. Maybe I should read Shakespeare to improve my performance. That approach might not be right but it is not superficial. Judging the performance solely based on those 5% wrong notes is superficial, because it has nothing to do with the interpretation.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Why not treat opinions with respect and simply give your counter opinion as opposed to asserting over who has authority and who does n*ot?
> 
> There are times I like Karajan's beauty of sound - Grieg, Sibelius, Debussy. And I like his Beethoven too, especially when I am in the mood for a more Furtwanglerian-like interpretation in better sound.
> 
> I am not saying Karajan was a one-trick pony. I was just responding to your objection over using the word "superficial." Some people describe Furtwangler as clumsy, sloppy, and, what was that one Heck used? Oh yeah, "portentous." To each their own. I wish we had more interesting choices today instead of what comes across to me as people afraid to stick out by being too individual.


Why not do the same yourself, I might ask?


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> These are just empty claims. I don't even need to know anything about orchestration or conducting practice to see the meaning behind such claim.
> 
> You think beauty of sound is very important, well some don't, *and they expresses it as superficial. *Glenn Gould definitely don't think the beauty of sound of piano is that important; Klemperer definitely don't think the beauty of sound of the orchestra is that important.
> 
> And if you into Eastern aesthetics, these ideas are dominant, and manifest in Wabisabi (seeking the inner beauty in the austere and imperfection), a rough cracked clay bowl of fisherman is deemed as a epitome of Wabisabi beauty.
> 
> To make such statement is perfectly meaningful, you don't have to agree with it. Instead of invalidating their statement as nonsense, you could make a case. *But you seem too caught up in your narrow view to do that.*


My view isn't narrow at all. In fact you have answered the point yourself. Just to say that beauty of sound is superficial is nonsense. As to narrow view I certainly didn't say that it was the only way to express music. You really need to think about what people are saying before you make empty claims that other people are making 'empty claims'


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree with your assessment. But it is fair to say Karajan put a lot of extra effort into the appearance of "sound". They worked wonderfully most of the time for me. His Dvorak 9th has always been excellent since his PO periods. But I would prefer WF's Brahms over Karajan even though they sound far superior.
> 
> I was merely make a point that "Karajan's sound seems superficial" is a perfectly meaningful statement (maybe not be a correct one), and *an impression resonates with many people*.


I think it's a statement that was taken up by certain tin-eared critics and has been endlessly repeated. Like the statement that Karajan's performances were 'bland'. Anyone with hearing can tell they generally were anything but, whether you liked them or not.


----------



## larold

820 posts; any further questions about Furtwangler's mystigue and staying power?


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Exactly, it's a very simple observation.
> 
> In a similar way, *you cannot be virtuostic when you play Mozart or Schubert's piano sonata. *Yes you have demonstrated your tremendous running skills and techniques that conjure up myriad of colors, but that only distract the listener from hearing the import stuff: the humor, the balance, and the poetry. It only goes show the audience that you understanding of the works is "superficial" because you put the focus on the things that is not specific to the work. If you play Chopin then it's almost required to display the color and resonance of the piano. A monochromatic Chopin would be perverse.
> 
> *How is orchestral playing any different?*


I suppose it depends what you mean by virtuosic. To me being virtuosic is being able to play the notes so well you can leave plenty of room for interpretation. Similarly the more virtuosic the orchestra the more room they have for interpretation. I can remember James Galway smiling at this sort of criticism of 'virtuosic' and saying 'and what's wrong with getting all the notes played perfectly right and in the right place?' I suppose it adds comfort to the second raters. Thankfully now most orchestras are 'virtuosic'.


----------



## mikeh375

Most musicians are concerned with a good or better sound for their instrument. It's partly what distinguishes some of them apart. Technical standard of the highest level is taken for granted and the minimum requirement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Why not do the same yourself, I might ask?


Simple giving my opinion is not the same as disrespecting your opinion.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> My view isn't narrow at all. In fact you have answered the point yourself. Just to say that beauty of sound is superficial is nonsense. As to narrow view I certainly didn't say that it was the only way to express music. You really need to think about what people are saying before you make empty claims that other people are making 'empty claims'


Your claims were empty because you provided no justifications for them, as simple as that.

Yes, calling your view narrow is ad hom, this is a measured response to your unnecessary provocation that you are so sure that "I don't know what I am talking about".

And calling your view narrow is also fair, since you insist on the statement "Just to say that beauty of sound is superficial is nonsense" shows you lack of understanding of what "nonsense" means. I am not criticizing or guessing your view, but to point out "a statement doesn't have to be true to make sense".

Calling something that make sense nonsense, is nonsensical because a statement cannot be nonsensical and make sense at the same time. I don't think I am the one who really need to "think" here.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> My interpretation of Annaw's Karajan anecdotal is the the opposite: Rostropovich was concerned with meaning, which is deep whereas Karajan made the artistic choice of not going for it, but to go for the beauty of sound, regardless of what the sound means in the context of the Don Quixote, which is more or less "superficial".
> 
> .


I must confess I find this pretty hard to believe anyone could say this just going on an anecdote from Rostropovich who, as we know, had a pretty broad sense of humour. Anyone who has listened to Karajan's Don Quixote (whether with Fournier or Rostropovich) will agree (unless his hearing is defective) that he had the meaning of the piece pretty well sown up and it is one of the great interpretations. Maybe if he had have included a few wrong notes from the orchestra it would have made it more 'meaningful' though! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Simple giving my opinion is not the same as disrespecting your opinion.


As usual one law for you and one for everyone else!


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your claims were empty because you provided no justifications for them, as simple as that.
> 
> Yes, calling your view narrow is ad hom, this is a measured response to your unnecessary provocation that you are so sure that "I don't know what I am talking about".
> 
> And calling your view narrow is also fair, since you insist on the statement "Just to say that beauty of sound is superficial is nonsense" shows you lack of understanding of what "nonsense" means. I am not criticizing or guessing your view, but to point out "a statement doesn't have to be true to make sense".
> 
> Calling something that make sense nonsense, is nonsensical because a statement cannot be nonsensical and make sense at the same time. I don't think I am the one who really need to "think" here.


Sorry you are wrong here as it is the context of the statement that must be taken into account. If you as a musician agree with the bald statement that 'beauty of sound is superficial' then I would doubt your hearing. Even I don't believe that!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I must confess I find this pretty hard to believe anyone could say this just going on an anecdote from Rostropovich who, as we know, had a pretty broad sense of humour. Anyone who has listened to Karajan's Don Quixote (whether with Fournier or Rostropovich) will agree (unless his hearing is defective) that he had the meaning of the piece pretty well sown up and it is one of the great interpretations. Maybe if he had have included a few wrong notes from the orchestra it would have made it more 'meaningful' though! :lol:


There is a thread on page 3 called "Strauss tone poems." I spent the past three months going on a listening binge and reporting my findings. There was actually a lot of Karajan I liked. His 70s Also sprach and Tod und Verklarung are my favorites.

This is what I wrote about the Rostropovich/Karajan Don Quixote:

" Rostropovich/Karajan was a unique listening experience. The sound is spectacular and overwhelming, but after a while I wonder what exactly I am listening to. It is enormous, voluptuous, powerful, and beautiful sounding, but where is the character and charm? I am hit over the head with impressive sounds, but I can't help but feel the music is being used to serve the performers rather than vice versa. Or, put another way, it's all just simply too big. I'm impressed, but left cold."

What does this review make me according to your definition?


----------



## JAS

larold said:


> 820 posts; any further questions about Furtwangler's mystigue and staying power?


It is an interesting name, especially if you give it a Germanic pronunciation.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

mikeh375 said:


> Most musicians are concerned with a good or better sound for their instrument. It's partly what distinguishes some of them apart. Technical standard of the highest level is taken for granted and the minimum requirement.


That's absolutely true, and that's exactly why as critical listeners who listen to recordings from a different era, it is important to examine what we take for granted as the product of the culture and institution of Classic music of our time.


----------



## DavidA

_I love Furtwängler's conducting as well although I have so far only heard a few recordings. But, his Tristan is one of my favourite opera recordings_![/QUOTE]

As this has gone on so long I am amazed how little attention has been paid to Furty's Wagner, of which he was reckoned to be the supreme master. I have his Walkure which is spoiled by a cast having a bad hair day and the Tristan which is reckoned to be a classic by RW buffs.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is a thread on page 3 called "Strauss tone poems." I spent the past three months going on a listening binge and reporting my findings. There was actually a lot of Karajan I liked. His 70s Also sprach and Tod und Verklarung are my favorites.
> 
> This is what I wrote about the Rostropovich/Karajan Don Quixote:
> 
> " Rostropovich/Karajan was a unique listening experience. The sound is spectacular and overwhelming, but after a while I wonder what exactly I am listening to. It is enormous, voluptuous, powerful, and beautiful sounding, but where is the character and charm? I am hit over the head with impressive sounds, but I can't help but feel the music is being used to serve the performers rather than vice versa. Or, put another way, it's all just simply too big. I'm impressed, but left cold."
> 
> *What does this review make me according to your definition*?


Wrong! ..............


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Sorry you are wrong here as it is the context of the statement that must be taken into account. If you as a musician agree with the bald statement that 'beauty of sound is superficial' then I would doubt your hearing. Even I don't believe that!


It's precisely because of the context of the statement, that the statement makes sense.

You have even used that statement to construct a subjunctive, if "the beauty of sound is superficial" does not make sense, then how can you possibly doubt my hearing based on a nonsensical statement?

What is really happening is that you don't agree with the the statement, and instead of providing a argument to further the conversation, you label it as "nonsense".

You have confused "superficial" with "desirable". I find the beauty of sound very desirable, but that does not mean it is not a superficial way to look at music, especially when set as a goal of music making in the wrong context. In the same way a beautiful lady is desirable to me, but focusing too much on her appearances make me superficial.

You have also confused "superficial" with validity and worth. Just because something is superficial, doesn't mean it's invalid or has less worth than something that is deep.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's precisely because of the context of the statement, that the statement makes sense.
> 
> You have even used that statement to construct a subjunctive, if "the beauty of sound is superficial" does not make sense, then how can you possibly doubt my hearing based on a nonsensical statement?
> 
> What is really happening is that you don't agree with the the statement, and instead of providing a argument to further the conversation, you label it as "nonsense".
> 
> You have confused "superficial" with "desirable". I find the beauty of sound very desirable, but that does not mean it is not a superficial way to look at music, especially when set as a goal of music making in the wrong context. In the same way a beautiful lady is desirable to me, but focusing too much on her appearances make me superficial.
> 
> You have also confused "superficial" with validity and worth. Just because something is superficial, doesn't mean it's invalid or has less worth than something that is deep.


Sorry but you multiply words and you've lost the whole meaning of what I meant. I haven't confused anything but you have - all the way down the line. Pointless arguing about this as you're arguing along parallel lines


----------



## Bulldog

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You have confused "superficial" with "desirable". I find the beauty of sound very desirable, but that does not mean it is not a superficial way to look at music, especially when set as a goal of music making in the wrong context. In the same way a beautiful lady is desirable to me, but focusing too much on her appearances make me superficial.


Maybe just horny.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> I suppose it depends what you mean by virtuosic. To me being virtuosic is being able to play the notes so well you can leave plenty of room for interpretation. Similarly the more virtuosic the orchestra the more room they have for interpretation. I can remember James Galway smiling at this sort of criticism of 'virtuosic' and saying 'and what's wrong with getting all the notes played perfectly right and in the right place?' I suppose it adds comfort to the second raters. Thankfully now most orchestras are 'virtuosic'.


In relation to what you have said about James Galway, Horowitz also said to Perahia that to surpass technician you must first become a technician (paraphrase). Interestingly, despite being widely revered as a deity among pianists, Horowitz has always been guilt of his idiosyncratic interpretions or excessive showmanship for many listeners. There is always a temptation to show off what you can do, if you have transcendental techniques, which is not unrelated to the music. This makes the performance more about big spectacles and it is fair to say that such tendency or obsession is superficial.

It is absolutely not necessary that "more room for interpretation" leads to "more interpretation". Alfred Cortot after 30s or the late Kempff all have subpar technical standards but they still display far "more interpretation" than thousands of rigorously trained Asian Piano prodigies who can play perfect Chopin etudes in their teens. It is the focus, or the goal, or the priority of music making that determines the artistic worth of music making. If the priority is super human technical standard and the audience expectation is super human technical standard, then those interpretative freedom empowered by modern training will go down the drain. Resulting in thousands of technically marvelous but somewhat standardized and unmoving performances that alienates the audience.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK. You've been enjoying my absence from this thread, while I've been listening to Bruckner 8 (1944) conducted by F.
Well, as an F virgin, what did I think?
If I was mischievous, I'd use the s*p*r*i*i*l word, but I think that's rude.
It wasn't for me, although I thought the quality of the recording was remarkably good.
Why wasn't it for me then?
Well, I got though the 1st movement OK, but it went a bit pear-shaped with the 2nd, and then I couldn't help noticing things. The problem was that whenever there was a bit where you might think, "could pull back a bit here" or "this is a place where some oomph is called for" it was taken to warp factor 8.
I like restraint (purely subjective, but I do). If a section is one where I think I could welcome a bit more energy, or a bit of a slow down, I like that to be noticeable in the performance, but not highlighted in marker pen. I find that (perversely, if you like) gives it more power. If a performer can make it seem like they are making such a shift, but if you were to time it they are hardly doing so at all, then that is for me. I played organ for a while, and the way you can use "attack" to create an impression of volume of sound, remains with me as a lesson.
Bruckner is a composer where there is often an arc to key sections or moments, and I don't need to be reminded of that - I need it to be respected in the performance, but not shouted at me. I came to be dreading the key points as they approached because I thought - oh no, how's this going to go down. It was no longer about the piece, it was more about someone saying to me "Hey - this is a big bit, isn't it - I'll go really fast here, or I'll drag it out big time stylee."
Now, in line with everything else I've posted on this thread I must say "each to their own", but F's Bruckner 8 wasn't my own. And if I was being vulgar I might suggest it was a bit s*p*r*i*i*l, although my feeling is it was more a matter of it being too o*v*o*s.
I hope I have given reasons for my subjective reaction, as I don't like simply to make blanket statements of a preference without trying to give some sort of explanation of why I feel like I do.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> In relation to what you have said about James Galway, Horowitz also said to Perahia that to surpass technician you must first become a technician (paraphrase). Interestingly, despite being widely revered as a deity among pianists, Horowitz has always been guilt of his idiosyncratic interpretions or excessive showmanship for many listeners. There is always a temptation to show off what you do, if you have transcendental techniques, which is not unrelated to the music. This makes the performance more about big spectacles and it is fair to say that such tendency or obsession is superficial.
> 
> It is absolutely not necessary that "more room for interpretation" leads to "more interpretation". Alfred Cortot after 30s or the late Kempff all have subpar technical standards but they still display far "more interpretation" than thousands of rigorously trained Asian Piano prodigies who can play perfect Chopin etudes in their teens. It is the focus, or the goal, or the priority of music making that determines the artistic worth of music making. If the priority is super human technical standard and the audience expectation is super human technical standard, then those interpretative freedom empowered by modern training will go down the drain. Resulting in thousands of technically marvelous but somewhat standardized and unmoving performances that alienates the audience.


Being a technician now is just taken for granted. The standard of instrumental playing has increased exponentially even among amateurs during my lifetime. At one time when I was a lad the local amateur orchestra could be guaranteed to give a very rough and ready performance. My wife recently sang with the local amateur orchestra and I noticed that the minimum grade required for playing with them was grade 8. So the standard has gone through the roof as far as professional orchestras are concerned and certainly as far as soloists. But I don't get this business about your standardised in and unmoving performances. We got those in the old days but they were just not as technically perfect. Perhaps you just remember the good ones. I would take issue about Kempff's technique. Certainly it i his later recordings It wasn't what it was but anyone who can express colour in the way he did has technique in spades imo.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you multiply words and you've lost the whole meaning of what I meant. I haven't confused anything but you have - all the way down the line. Pointless arguing about this as you're arguing along parallel lines


I don't see a single argument here. I don't care what you meant outside the words you spew. Just admit it that you abuse the word "nonsense" to attack people.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Being a technician now is just taken for granted...


Thanks for the sincere response. I am well aware of the technical standard nowadays. But there is no reason for the critical listener to take it for granted. Certainly no reason to use "skills" for ego contest and to deride less talented musicians. I am all for mastering the instrument and the human voice (especially voice). But there are way too much time spent on getting technical details right even for amateurs that only few end up caring about the musical text, or communication through music. I would always prefer a technically insecure amateur performance that moves me to a superbly executed borefest.

Art is never about "technical standard" as if techniques can really be standardized. (I am sure thousands of Asian art students have better techniques than Vincent van Gogh). This is in my view the engineering approach to music, which deserve criticism and shouldn't be taken for granted as the primary measure of worth of a performance. Professionalism is good and all but that shouldn't be the concern of the audience. These are the extraneous aspect of music that can be seen as superficial. Technical standard of course can be "requirement" but it cannot be the vision, or the objective of music making.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> OK. You've been enjoying my absence from this thread, while I've been listening to Bruckner 8 (1944) conducted by F.
> Well, as an F virgin, what did I think?
> If I was mischievous, I'd use the s*p*r*i*i*l word, but I think that's rude.
> It wasn't for me, although I thought the quality of the recording was remarkably good.
> Why wasn't it for me then?
> Well, I got though the 1st movement OK, but it went a bit pear-shaped with the 2nd, and then I couldn't help noticing things. The problem was that whenever there was a bit where you might think, "could pull back a bit here" or "this is a place where some oomph is called for" it was taken to warp factor 8.
> I like restraint (purely subjective, but I do). If a section is one where I think I could welcome a bit more energy, or a bit of a slow down, I like that to be noticeable in the performance, but not highlighted in marker pen. I find that (perversely, if you like) gives it more power. If a performer can make it seem like they are making such a shift, but if you were to time it they are hardly doing so at all, then that is for me. I played organ for a while, and the way you can use "attack" to create an impression of volume of sound, remains with me as a lesson.
> Bruckner is a composer where there is often an arc to key sections or moments, and I don't need to be reminded of that - I need it to be respected in the performance, but not shouted at me. I came to be dreading the key points as they approached because I thought - oh no, how's this going to go down. It was no longer about the piece, it was more about someone saying to me "Hey - this is a big bit, isn't it - I'll go really fast here, or I'll drag it out big time stylee."
> Now, in line with everything else I've posted on this thread I must say "each to their own", but F's Bruckner 8 wasn't my own. And if I was being vulgar I might suggest it was a bit s*p*r*i*i*l, although my feeling is it was more a matter of it being too o*v*o*s.
> I hope I have given reasons for my subjective reaction, as I don't like simply to make blanket statements of a preference without trying to give some sort of explanation of why I feel like I do.


Did you listen to the Adagio?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Did you listen to the Adagio?


I listened to the whole thing - hence my welcome silence. :lol: I liked the adagio - it was primarily the scherzo that troubled me, and I'm afraid that I was then on guard. It was just that there seemed to be too much in the second movement where the fast bits were really fast and the contrast with the slower sections seemed to me to be out of kilter. Without that movement I may have been more responsive to the later movements (I can't know). There were certainly beautiful aspects, but then I would be staggered if there weren't as F was a hugely well-regarded figure and that must mean something.

I must admit that it got me thinking about the composers and pieces that I particularly like. I like Brahms a lot, precisely (I think) because the emotion is often held on such a tight rein, so that when it is apparent the power of it is stronger. I also like Ravel, because there is so much bottled up in technical skill, but I sense real emotion suppressed underneath. Perhaps I have a similar sense with Prokofiev (whereas with, say, Stravinsky I don't often sense much emotion at all). I am less enamoured of composers who "let it hang out" more often or more obviously. I think the negative elements of my reaction to the F performance relate to the feeling that he was letting it hang out more than is my preference.


----------



## annaw

Eclectic Al said:


> I listened to the whole thing - hence my welcome silence. :lol: I liked the adagio - it was primarily the scherzo that troubled me, and I'm afraid that I was then on guard. It was just that there seemed to be too much in the second movement where the fast bits were really fast and the contrast with the slower sections seemed to me to be out of kilter. Without that movement I may have been more responsive to the later movements (I can't know). There were certainly beautiful aspects, but then I would be staggered if there weren't as F was a hugely well-regarded figure and that must mean something.
> 
> I must admit that it got me thinking about the composers and pieces that I particularly like. *I like Brahms a lot, precisely (I think) because the emotion is often held on such a tight rein, so that when it is apparent the power of it is stronger. * I also like Ravel, because there is so much bottled up in technical skill, but I sense real emotion suppressed underneath. Perhaps I have a similar sense with Prokofiev (whereas with, say, Stravinsky I don't often sense much emotion at all). I am less enamoured of composers who "let it hang out" more often or more obviously. I think the negative elements of my reaction to the F performance relate to the feeling that he was letting it hang out more than is my preference.


I love those composers who displayed it all (although even in those cases, the real meaning is often hidden in the deepest layers of music) but Brahms was often emotionally very bold as well - that's one of many reasons why I adore his symphonies and chamber music. But sure, he was somewhat more restrained than Mahler or Bruckner. I think you make a fair point though, I guess that's why Furtwängler was so amazing with Wagner. I listened to his VPO _Walküre_ some time ago (why oh why didn't he cast Hotter as Wotan!?) and the first act was an overwhelming experience: Suthaus is on fire and Furtwängler conducted it extremely powerfully. When he reaches _Siegmund heiss ich und Siegmund bin ich!_ the great Wagnerian drama and the tragedy of the whole act is unveiled before the listener both through the singing but, possibly even more importantly, through the conducting.


----------



## RogerWaters

I loved Karajan a few years ago but have moved away from his Beethoveen, for instance, towards Blomstedt's first set; his Brahms towards Klemperer and Levin's first set. I find Karajan superb in Wagner, as well as Berg and Honegger and some Bruckner. I like him more in 'looser' music which is made of broader strokes, so to speak, as opposed to music with a tighter structure.

The idea that he sought 'beauty' of sound is of course true. The idea that this is _necessarily _superficial is questionable. Superficial means:

1. existing or occurring at or on the surface (does apply to music)
2. appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely (does not apply to music - let's please not start this debate again, music is not a proposition/representation)

On 1, Karajan was obviously concerned with more than just surface characteristics of music (orchestral polish, texture, and plushness). He might not have nailed what everyone _likes_ in terms of phrasing, tempo, rubato etc, but this is not the same as not having been concerned with those 'deeper' characteristics of music in the first place.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I must admit that it got me thinking about the composers and pieces that I particularly like. I like Brahms a lot...


If you like Brahms, then let me recommend in my opinion Furtwangler's finest achievement - the Brahms symphonies.

WF has conducted more than 500 concerts of Brahms symphony, far more than HvK and wrote interesting essays about them. Brahms 1 seem to be his favorite and the legends about his interwar Brahms 1 were wild. Sadly there is no complete version of them during war, only fragments that you can have a glimpse of on YT (I recommend the legendary 45 recording of the 4th mov.).

I recommend the following two:
1951.10.27 NWDR-Sinfonieorchester




1952.01.27 Berliner Philharmoniker





I will save my glowing tribute to them and let the recording speak for themselves. The 52 BPO version was later released by DG but heavily post-processed, the linked version I provided is very likely (since it's in Japanese) to be the special Japanese release without the remaster which is more authentic than the international version. The Japanese critics (cult, I guess) have long adored Furtwangler and some regard the 52 version as one of the Top 3 greatest Furtwangler classic recordings.

For the 51 NDR recording (much leaner sound than the 52 BPO), Furtwangler use his famous tempo changes to convey structural unity (especially how he changes gear after the opening timpani roll and at the end of sostenuto and at the end of Meno Allegro) and to create heart stopping effect of tension and release. A musical demonstration of the dialectics between Classicism and Romanticism (hallmark of Brahms) achieving synthesis. The 4th movement is not as incandescent as the interwar excerpts but it should still get your blood boil.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I loved Karajan a few years ago but have moved away from his Beethoveen, for instance, towards Blomstedt's first set; his Brahms towards Klemperer and Levin's first set. I find Karajan superb in Wagner, as well as Berg and Honegger and some Bruckner. I like him more in 'looser' music which is made of broader strokes, so to speak, as opposed to music with a tighter structure.
> 
> The idea that he sought 'beauty' of sound is of course true. The idea that this is superficial is not. Superficial means:
> 
> 1. existing or occurring at or on the surface (does apply to music)
> 2. appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely (does not apply to music - let's please not start this debate again, music is not a proposition/representation)
> 
> On 1, Karajan was obviously concerned with more than just surface characteristics of music ('beauty)'. He might not have nailed what everyone _likes_ in terms of phrasing, tempo, rubato etc, but this is not the same as not having been concerned with those 'deeper' characteristics of music in the first place.


I agree with this fair assessment. But there are times that Karajan comes off as being "superficial" (in the sense that the beauty of sound distract you from the musical content), whether or not that's the problem the listener is debatable and require further investigation (and should not be brushed off as nonsensical).


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree with this fair assessment. But there are times that Karajan comes off as being "superficial" (in the sense that the beauty of sound distract you from the musical content), whether or not that's the problem the listener is debatable and require further investigation (and should not be brushed off as nonsensical).


I feel the same way about Furtwangler, in reverse. The ugliness of the (recorded) sound distracts me from the musical content.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I feel the same way about Fartwangler, in reverse. The ugliness of the (recorded) sound distracts me from the musical content.


I am sympathetic to that but that's not an artistic choice made by WF. At least there is that Tahra stereo recording of his Beethoven 9th.

If you don't like the hissing mono sound you are missing out a treasure trove of great stuff. The golden age of pianists: Rachmaninoff, Hoffman, Schnabel, Cortot, Backhaus, early Rubinstein, early Horowitz etc and also the golden of age of opera singers the cost is just too large.


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> This accusation is said using Western religious terminology. All that has been said is simply an expression of the anti-religious views of ultra-rationalists who believe in nothing, especially the human spirit. To them, this doesn't exist.
> 
> No wonder there is no "payoff" for them. They cannot assert anything; They can only deny. I call that "rationalist nihilism."
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us "believers" in Humanity's potential to tap-in to the sacred will continue to reap the benefits of the great art which has been produced by these geniuses.


Pardon me while I sow up my sides. What a fantastically hilarious post.

Many do not believe in the human 'spirit' (if you mean some peronsalised non-physical entity that is somehow supposed to interface with our physical bodies and which remains after death), but to say this results in there being no 'payoff' from the great music of Beethoven or Brahms, is so stupid it's hard to take seriously.

Have you taken your medication, today?!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Have you taken your medication, today?!


You can't help insulting people, can you?

What some people call the "spirit" may very well have a materialistic explanation, such view is certainly not irreconcilable for a careful rationalist. And there could be "extra" benefit to reap from it. There is really not enough reason for lashing out.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There is really *not enough reason* for lashing out.


Is this a transcendetal argument? Because I'm not feeling it's force.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Is this a transcendetal argument? Because I'm not feeling it's force.


One can't apply too much force to a fragile being, it will break.

You seem to have a tendency to jump into conclusion, which is a sign of the habit of making a priori assumptions (since "transcendental" frightens you I will use more formal terms).


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You seem to have a tendency to jump into conclusion, which is a sign of the habit of making a priori assumptions (since "transcendental" frightens you I will use more formal terms).


A formidable linkage of ideas (all spurred on by your defense of one of the most foolish posts I've yet seen in this discussion!).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> A formidable linkage of ideas (all spurred on by your defense of one of the most foolish posts I've yet seen in this discussion!).


You just provided me with an example of you jumping into conclusions.

I am not defending the supposedly "foolish" posts, I am criticizing you appalling behavior and your high horse attitude, which seem to come from nowhere.

You seem so certain of yourself and your worldview, which indicates that you are more similar to those who you despise than you may realize.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You seem so certain of yourself and your worldview, which indicates that you are more similar to those who you despise than you may realize.


Yes I am *completely certain* that disbelieving a non-materialist notion of the 'human spirit' does *not *rule out appreciating great art.

I'm clearly now in the same bandwagon as religious zealots and lovers of all things opaque and mystifying!



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am not defending the supposedly "foolish" posts, I am criticizing you appalling behavior and your high horse attitude, which seem to come from nowhere.


My _appauling behaviour_! Get the violins out!

You might like to appeal to the moral scruples of someone who cares about your personal sensitivities. I don't.

(And why do I get the distinct impression you would _ not_ have been appaulled at a polemic comment defending a psuedo-spiritualist worldview?!)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Yes I am *completely certain* that disbelieving a non-materialist notion of the 'human spirit' does *not *rule out appreciating great art.


And I agree with that carefully formed statement (not the "completely certain" part). Anyone who use the word "completely certain" is revealing a lot of information about himself.

But that doesn't give you the intellectual superiority to mock your opponent as "foolish", "stupid", "hilarious" or suggesting mental illness. There is a big jump here, and it also revealed a lot about yourself.

As I see it, the post you cited has carefully stated "in Western Religious Terms", which means "spirit" could be the religious interpretation of the "virtual machine" theory of consciousness, which is materialistic (there are other possibilities). The "spirit", the "will", the "soul" could be refer to the same thing in different ways (Furtwangler approached music making from the angle of the "will" of the composer, a Schopenhauerian view).

The post also carefully chose the word "rational nihilism" and refer to them in general terms. If you are any kind of nihilist, when of course you will not get any meaning from listening to Beethoven, by definition, even if you are rational. A computer can process Beethoven and it's rational but cannot get any meaning out of it. Therefore, the position described by the post is not ridiculous at all. It seems a bit sophisticated to my understanding.

In addition, I don't believe that you are a rational nihilist, since you are so certain of yourself and your world view, so it's surprising for me that you are so eager to defend "rational nihilists" whoever they are, that's very noble of you.

Since you jumped so quickly declaring victory and announcing intellectual superiority, and spewed insult, I had to give a few words of caution to the man of science, he who has been involved with analytical philosophy and cognitive science for 10 years because I like men of science.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I don't see a single argument here. I don't care what you meant outside the words you spew. Just admit it that you abuse the word "nonsense" to attack people.


Exactly you don't care what people mean by their words. That is why your accusation is meaningless. Anyway if you don't mind I don't want to fruitlessly go on arguing about your accusations about semantics when the post is about Furtwangler


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thanks for the sincere response. I am well aware of the technical standard nowadays. But there is no reason for the critical listener to take it for granted. Certainly no reason to use "skills" for ego contest and to deride less talented musicians. I am all for mastering the instrument and the human voice (especially voice). But there are way too much time spent on getting technical details right even for amateurs that only few end up caring about the musical text, or communication through music. I would always prefer a technically insecure amateur performance that moves me to a superbly executed borefest.
> 
> Art is never about "technical standard" as if techniques can really be standardized. (I am sure thousands of Asian art students have better techniques than Vincent van Gogh). This is in my view the engineering approach to music, which deserve criticism and shouldn't be taken for granted as the primary measure of worth of a performance. Professionalism is good and all but that shouldn't be the concern of the audience. These are the extraneous aspect of music that can be seen as superficial. Technical standard of course can be "requirement" but it cannot be the vision, or the objective of music making.


To me this is just an amateurish view of musicmaking which cannot be sustained these days and went out in the days of recording. Today people expect technical excellence like they expect technical excellence in a lot of areas. You seem to be one of these people who is an either / or man whereas the world has moved to a both / and . No one is of course deriding less technical musicians as I am a vastly less technical musician myself. But we have now reached an age where in the concert hall excellence of technique is an expected requirement. I mean when you see a 15-year-old girl playing the Prokofiev second piano concerto with aplomb as happened in the BBC Young musician last time one can only just gasp. However I was pleased this time to see a young man awarded the piano final where it was more about the light and shade in his performance than just the sheer technique. The problem with you peopke is not to notice these things as you have a one trCk argument


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree with this fair assessment. But there are times that Karajan comes off as being "superficial" (in the sense that the beauty of sound distract you from the musical content), whether or not that's the problem the listener is debatable and require further investigation (and should not be brushed off as nonsensical).


Question: how can beauty of sound distract one from the musical content?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Exactly you don't care what people mean by their words. That is why your accusation is meaningless. Anyway if you don't mind I don't want to fruitlessly go on arguing about your accusations about semantics when the post is about Furtwangler


Touche. I admit I do care as long as they care to explain it when there is misunderstanding.

And I am all for discussing Furtwangler. I just made an appreciation post of his Brahms 1 if you like to discuss that. The "spirit" discussion is also related to how Furtwangler approaches interpretation. But please don't repeat those poorly formed ad hom attack.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Question: how can beauty of sound distract one from the musical content?


Answer: Attention deficiency. We mortals can only focus on so many things. If my mind got lost on the beauty of sound, I might have missed subtle shift of dynamics, inner voice, harmonic change, subtle rhythmic figures and millions of other things that I can pay my attention to.

To appreciate the beauty of sound requires a lot of attention, the beauty comes from intonation, the overtone series of the instrument, the acoustic, the sonority (how these overtone series mingle), impulse response (how quickly the sound die off), resonance (in piano) and is not an independent thing. The psychological effect of the beauty also depends on contrast and rhythms and the state of mind etc.


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thanks for the sincere response. I am well aware of the technical standard nowadays. But there is no reason for the critical listener to take it for granted. Certainly no reason to use "skills" for ego contest and to deride less talented musicians. I am all for mastering the instrument and the human voice (especially voice). But there are way too much time spent on getting technical details right even for amateurs that only few end up caring about the musical text, or communication through music. I would always prefer a technically insecure amateur performance that moves me to a superbly executed borefest.
> 
> Art is never about "technical standard" as if techniques can really be standardized. (I am sure thousands of Asian art students have better techniques than Vincent van Gogh). This is in my view the engineering approach to music, which deserve criticism and shouldn't be taken for granted as the primary measure of worth of a performance. Professionalism is good and all but that shouldn't be the concern of the audience. These are the extraneous aspect of music that can be seen as superficial. Technical standard of course can be "requirement" but it cannot be the vision, or the objective of music making.


UTM, we both know that music is in part, technical and the time spent in mastering such things is the foundation upon which artistry then soars. The more acquired the technique becomes, the freer the interpretation and expression. Many great players will sometimes literally play difficult works "as they feel" on the night because they can and the reason they can is down to hard graft and dedication to the fundamentals. Technical standard is indeed a requirement but it is also the necessary springboard for unbounded expression and the easy giving of one's subjectivity to the music.

As to the audience, there is nothing worse than a nervous performer who is mentally dreading the upcoming difficult bars, no music is to be had in that situation, merely the projection of anxiety to the listener.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Point to me where anyone on this thread made this claim.
> 
> Nobody on this thread has been arguing the point that only Furtwängler knows the way to truth. That is a BS straw man that certain people want to use to truncate discussion.
> 
> The point was to counter what the so-called objectivists say is Furtwängler taking liberties with the score. The point was that we are all on an individual journey in search of truth, and that the objective lies beyond the grasp of all us, certainly also beyond the grasp of those who regard the score as a clear set of finite instructions.
> 
> The composers were not gods. They were also in search of truth. That's the whole point. That's why the music was written. To touch us, to connect us. The performer must have the same goal.


I am away from my PC for a few days, and trawling through this thread to find supporting evidence for my observation is nigh on impossible on my mobile. Suffice to say that I stand by my words which were not aimed at any one individual, but at the general tenor of the debate.

Anyway, things have moved on a few pages since, so maybe a more detailed response is no longer appropriate.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

mikeh375 said:


> As to the audience, there is nothing worse than a nervous performer who is mentally dreading the upcoming difficult bars, no music is to be had in that situation, merely the projection of anxiety to the listener.


I agree in general with what you said. But why do you think performers are so nervous? Because the expectation of the technical standard from the audience (in the performer's mind) is too high. Of course technical assurance should be a prerequisite, but it shouldn't be the goal, in my opinion. And setting the bar higher and higher will just create boring performances because the performance can't take risk, hence the supposedly "interpretive freedom" is lost again, because of fear.

It's simple economics. We rank performances base on error rate, so of course performers will try to minimize error as oppose to being "free". To be "free" is to embrace human vulnerability and take risk and be OK with it. There is also this Ratchet effect that standards are gradually set higher and higher, because it seems to be the way that performers stand out or win big competition or to have a career. You could have produced wonderful music but if you make a certain amount of wrong notes, then everything is ruined somehow. This idea is completely arbitrary.

This is why often times small local orchestra can have more exciting concert experience than the big famous ones - they can play their hearts out without worrying too much and that moves the audience, the distance (mutual trust) between the performer and the audience is smaller. This also explains why live recitals can be so much more exciting than recordings, because the performers don't need to record 100 times to get to perfection (Zimmerman comes to mind), and they can actually express themselves a bit more (even the best of the best make small mistakes in live performance).

Another drawback is that the so-call "second-rate" musicians do not have enough opportunities to perform even for smaller audience because they don't meet the standard. These "second-rate" musician might not have the best techniques but could well be more musical or has better story to tell than child prodigies whose whole life has been practicing day and night. This creates a negative feedback loop because all audience hear is super human technical standard so their taste and expectation also focus on this aspect.


----------



## mikeh375

DavidA said:


> To me this is just an amateurish view of musicmaking which cannot be sustained these days and went out in the days of recording. Today people expect technical excellence like they expect technical excellence in a lot of areas. You seem to be one of these people who is an either / or man whereas the world has moved to a both / and . No one is of course deriding less technical musicians as I am a vastly less technical musician myself. But we have now reached an age where in the concert hall excellence of technique is an expected requirement. I mean when you see a 15-year-old girl playing the Prokofiev second piano concerto with aplomb as happened in the BBC Young musician last time one can only just gasp. However I was pleased this time to see a young man awarded the piano final where it was more about the light and shade in his performance than just the sheer technique. The problem with you peopke is not to notice these things as you have a one trCk argument


Regarding technical prowess, I think David hits a salient, but perhaps overlooked point. The medium of music and its consumption is clearly different now, with recording obviously being the prime way music is experienced. Recordings are set in aural stone as it were and no-one wants to repeatedly hear technical mistakes. Recordings play a big role in a musicians life too and the process can be a very expensive thing to do, as well as lucrative for a player. Any musician who is not up to standard is immediately found out and never asked back. That in itself is enough reason to encourage high standards, which I might add, imv does not detract from expression, but in fact enhances it because the sensitive, refined (to just distinguish from the showy) artist then knows no bounds.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Answer: Attention deficiency. We mortals can only focus on so many things. If my mind got lost on the beauty of sound, I might have missed subtle shift of dynamics, inner voice, harmonic change, subtle rhythmic figures and millions of other things that I can pay my attention to.
> 
> To appreciate the beauty of sound requires a lot of attention, the beauty comes from intonation, the overtone series of the instrument, the acoustic, the sonority (how these overtone series mingle), impulse response (how quickly the sound die off), resonance (in piano) and is not an independent thing. The psychological effect of the beauty also depends on contrast and rhythms and the state of mind etc.


Interesting you seem to have the mind that can only focus on one thing. Some of us have minds which can focus on more than one thing. The human brain is remarkable thing and we can actually focus on these other things while admiring the beauty of sound. I must say the wrong notes and impure tuning distract from the things I'm supposed to be paying attention to


----------



## DavidA

mikeh375 said:


> Regarding technical prowess, I think David hits a salient, but perhaps overlooked point. The medium of music and its consumption is clearly different now, with recording obviously being the prime way music is experienced. Recordings are set in aural stone as it were and no-one wants to repeatedly hear technical mistakes. Recordings play a big role in a musicians life too and the process can be a very expensive thing to do, as well as lucrative for a player. Any musician who is not up to standard is immediately found out and never asked back. That in itself is enough reason to encourage high standards, which I might add, imv does not detract from expression, but in fact enhances it because the sensitive, refined (to just distinguish from the showy) artist then knows no bounds.


I think as well even in the performances which are recorded live which is the majority today probably the technical excellence is astounding without sacrificing any interpretive value. I do find it amazing that such excellence is actually looked down upon as something that is undesirable. It isn't at all.


----------



## Woodduck

> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows:*
> 
> This accusation is said using Western religious terminology. All that has been said is simply an expression of the anti-religious views of ultra-rationalists who believe in nothing, especially the human spirit. To them, this doesn't exist.
> 
> No wonder there is no "payoff" for them. They cannot assert anything; They can only deny. I call that "rationalist nihilism."
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us "believers" in Humanity's potential to tap-in to the sacred will continue to reap the benefits of the great art which has been produced by these geniuses.





RogerWaters said:


> Pardon me while I sow up my sides. What a fantastically hilarious post.
> 
> Many do not believe in the human 'spirit' (if you mean some personalised non-physical entity that is somehow supposed to interface with our physical bodies and which remains after death), but to say this results in there being no 'payoff' from the great music of Beethoven or Brahms, is so stupid it's hard to take seriously.


Heh heh.

Welcome, RW, to the millionrainbows dungeon for "ultra-rationalist-nihilists," to whom great art is as alien and meaningless as the extinct language of the extinct inhabitants of Atlantis. You must have done something terribly rational to be threatened with imprisonment here. In my case it was insisting too often that words should be used to convey actual meanings (a pernicious habit of "rationalists," I suppose) that I was assigned a place in this pit of darkness, and now I'm condemned to quiver in what I'm told is helpless incomprehension before the busts of Bach, Beethoven and Wagner (I replace the traditional "Brahms" with "Wagner" because this forum is filled with my apparently ignorant essays on that composer's art, the real "payoff" from which I might be condemned to wait until a deathbed conversion to spiritualism, theosophy or some other species of Woo Woo allows me a glimpse across the Murky Moat of Musical Ignorance into the Shining Fortress of True Artistic Understanding).

Honestly, though I may be languishing in darkness down here, I've always found quite a powerful "payoff" from art, having been a happy, successful and much appreciated (and paid) practitioner of the musical, visual and verbal arts all of my seventy years. It makes a man wonder: is it possible that I don't "believe in nothing" after all?


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree in general with what you said. But why do you think performers are so nervous? Because the expectation of the technical standard from the audience (in the performer's mind) is too high. Of course technical assurance should be a prerequisite, but it shouldn't be the goal, in my opinion. And setting the bar higher and higher will just create boring performances because the performance can't take risk, hence the supposedly "interpretive freedom" is lost again, in fear.


I agree, technique should not be the ultimate goal, it should always serve rather than dictate. The bar is seemingly getting higher and a great players personality has to stand out against a backdrop of almost bland virtuosity? Of course there isn't enough room in the market for all this virtuosity and dreams are shattered all the time. Marketing is often cynical and even great players will go unnoticed but perhaps that's another discussion.


----------



## NLAdriaan

This thread is positively a side effect of the Corona boredom, if not a symptom The mods should put this thread in quarantaine for two weeks, as it became multiple circular, nonsensical, endless and no one seems to be able to stop. 

But before doing so, my question if BH has ever watched F live in concert, was unanswered. So, did you?

And to the discussion of perfect musicmaking: Please note that every modern recording, even of the most soulful soloist, is a puzzle of thousands of assembled notes from different takes. Only a live performance is still in one piece.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread is positively a side effect of the Corona boredom, if not a symptom The mods should put this thread in quarantaine for two weeks, as it became multiple circular, nonsensical, endless and no one seems to be able to stop.
> 
> But before doing so, my question if BH has ever watched F live in concert, was unanswered. So, did you?
> 
> And to the discussion of perfect musicmaking: *Please note that every modern recording, even of the most soulful soloist, is a puzzle of thousands of assembled notes from different takes.* Only a live performance is still in one piece.


You are very much behind the times here as most modern recordings now are actually recordings of live events.


----------



## mikeh375

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread is positively a side effect of the Corona boredom, if not a symptom The mods should put this thread in quarantaine for two weeks, as it became multiple circular, nonsensical, endless and no one seems to be able to stop.
> 
> But before doing so, my question if BH has ever watched F live in concert, was unanswered. So, did you?
> 
> And to the discussion of perfect musicmaking: Please note that every modern recording, even of the most soulful soloist, is a puzzle of thousands of assembled notes from different takes. Only a live performance is still in one piece.


Well that's a bit churlish. The thread is simply developing and some of these issues mean something to some and it's nice to chat with clear thinkers about them.

Besides, not all recordings are made up of thousands of takes. Musicians also have pride and would rather repeat than move on, this I know from experience. Time is music's oppressor in a studio as it has to be paid for and that can account for post-splicing of takes, but not always. Still your point, valid as it may be in the recording world, does not actually contribute to the thrust of the discussion about perfection in performance from a players pov and has merely made me wonder why you'd be so mean spirited in your opening remarks.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Interesting you seem to have the mind that can only focus on one thing. Some of us have minds which can focus on more than one thing. The human brain is remarkable thing and we can actually focus on these other things while admiring the beauty of sound. I must say the wrong notes and impure tuning distract from the things I'm supposed to be paying attention to


Guess I will have to work with my subpar mind.

The point is not that you don't hear many things at once, but there are so many aspects during the listen experience you have to let something go. Interpretation is about prioritizing which one should be in the foreground, which ones should be in the background. It's impossible to have everything at once because they are all relative to each other. Emphasis on one thing will inevitably de-emphasis the other (even when playing fugue you have to pick a voice that is more foreground than background).

Of course wrong notes and out of tunes or wrong beats are annoying and should be avoided. The question is how much resources should be allocated to these concerns because all musician work with limited resources and all listener have limited attention. Just like in photography, you can't have everything in focus, if everything is in focus than nothing stands out.


----------



## Marc

From what I heard and saw of him, Furtwängler wasn't all that bad. And, in his lifetime, his performances/recordings were praised a lot. And there are still quite a few supporters of him, which kinda proves that he was/is something special. It's hard to explain such a thing... I guess it has something to do with personal preferences. 

But, no matter in what profession, I myself only become fascinated of another person when that person is a female.
So, no fascination with good ole Wilhelm here.


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Guess I will have to work with my subpar mind.
> 
> The point is not that you don't hear many things at once, but there are so many aspects during the listen experience you have to let something go. Interpretation is about prioritizing which one should be in the foreground, which ones should be in the background. It's impossible to have everything at once because they are all relative to each other. Emphasis on one thing will inevitably de-emphasis the other (even when playing fugue you have to pick a voice that is more foreground than background).
> 
> Of course wrong notes and out of tunes or wrong beats are annoying and should be avoided. The question is how much resources should be allocated to these concerns because all musician work with limited resources and all listener have limited attention. Just like in photography, you can't have everything in focus, if everything is in focus than nothing stands out.


All questions a composer has to deal with at every stage during writing too.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Guess I will have to work with my subpar mind.
> 
> The point is not that you don't hear many things at once, but there are so many aspects during the listen experience you have to let something go. Interpretation is about prioritizing which one should be in the foreground, which ones should be in the background. It's impossible to have everything at once because they are all relative to each other. Emphasis on one thing will inevitably de-emphasis the other (even when playing fugue you have to pick a voice that is more foreground than background).
> 
> Of course wrong notes and out of tunes or wrong beats are annoying and should be avoided. The question is how much resources should be allocated to these concerns because all musician work with limited resources and all listener have limited attention. Just like in photography, you can't have everything in focus, if everything is in focus than nothing stands out.


Interesting you only seem to assume others can only be able to focus on a few things at once. Karajan used to work extensively on what he called 'making your palette' by which he meant mixing the various sounds to be perfectly balanced to his satisfaction. Of course it is possible to have everything at once - that is what the great conductors do.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This thread is positively a side effect of the Corona boredom, if not a symptom The mods should put this thread in quarantaine for two weeks, as it became multiple circular, nonsensical, endless and no one seems to be able to stop.
> 
> But before doing so, my question if BH has ever watched F live in concert, was unanswered. So, did you?
> 
> And to the discussion of perfect musicmaking: Please note that every modern recording, even of the most soulful soloist, is a puzzle of thousands of assembled notes from different takes. Only a live performance is still in one piece.


Talking of Furtwangler he was the guy Culshaw talked about when he recorded a symphony for a Decca who insisted on having a very old fashioned microphone which he had always used for that particular recording. Everyone wondered what had happened to Decca's famed ff sound!


----------



## NLAdriaan

I just thought that each and every discussion here was purely from a listeners pov And even then, a load of posts in this thread were written by people who didn't even listen to F's recordings. So, let's not overdo the true spirit of this thread.



> You are very much behind the times here as most modern recordings now are actually recordings of live events.


Since when do we discuss and generally appreciate modern recordings here at TC? A few days ago, someone posted an overview of modern recordings of a certain piece, of which the most 'modern' was 40+ years old And I don't know who is behind here? Even the live recordings of today, are assembled from several performances and rehearsals. Only radio or bootleg recordings are not. So, 95% of all recordings is a potpourri of spiritual moods. But as listeners, we don't notice it. The human ear doesn't seem to care.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I just thought that each and every discussion here was purely from a listeners pov And even then, a load of posts in this thread were written by people who didn't even listen to F's recordings. So, let's not overdo the true spirit of this thread.
> 
> Since when do we discuss and generally appreciate modern recordings here at TC? A few days ago, someone posted an overview of modern recordings of a certain piece, of which the most 'modern' was 40+ years old And I don't know who is behind here? Even the live recordings of today, are assembled from several performances and rehearsals. Only radio or bootleg recordings are not. So, 95% of all recordings is a potpourri of spiritual moods. But as listeners, we don't notice it. The human ear doesn't seem to care.


Is your ear so fine you can tell?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Duncan said:


> She's actually here every day... Reading the comments... sighing in exasperation... shaking her head in disgust... laughing uproariously... quietly chuckling... Typical Becca behaviour... everything except "snorting in derision"


I think she really did use the plane to run away. So I agree with everything you said in your comment, except the "She's actually here every day" part.


Becca said:


> In the event that it does start a firestorm, I have arranged for this to be on standby...
> View attachment 136028





hammeredklavier said:


> I sort of misinterpreted the picture. I thought she meant she was going to use the plane to run away once the damage (the arson) is done, and things start to escalate in the thread.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Interesting you only seem to assume others can only be able to focus on a few things at once. Karajan used to work extensively on what he called 'making your palette' by which he meant mixing the various sounds to be perfectly balanced to his satisfaction. Of course it is possible to have everything at once - that is what the great conductors do.


I have not assumed anything. I specified that "for us mortals" for that very reason.

And I am of course speaking as an average listener (whatever it means). Perhaps my listening ability is below average but last time I took test I am quite OK. Professionalism is not really a concern for the average listener and criticisms toward the conductor are meant for appreciation of music among average listeners.

To suggests that Karajan has all these "superhuman" ability does not explain away his artistic choice intended for the audience who do not possess Karajan's talent (I know he memorized all 30+ opera of Mozart he was the Wunder kid that's why he was the great Maestro).

It is not the responsibility of the listener to understand the performer (that doesn't mean the listener should not try to understand the performer), but the reverse, it is on the performer to make his intention understood by the intended listeners. To suggest otherwise would be an extraordinary position. If the beauty of the sound is what best characterizes a listening experience (the strongest impression) then it necessarily means that such performance failed to convey meaning to the listener as its primary goal. There are many performances that are more likely to make the listener "understand" the music more (as the strongest impression).

Performance is about communication (transmission of information in sound waves) and the fundamental problem of a performance in my view, is the curse of knowledge, that the performer always know/hear more than the listener but he/she cannot communicate everything he/she knows to the listener. As a result, the effectiveness to overcoming this curse is a measure of artistic worth. In this view, a successful great artist should not communicate to expert but to laymen, and the amount of information (rationalized as meaning) conveyed is important. If the central message being conveyed to the average listener is that the sound is beautiful, then it is well justified to say it is superficial because beauty of the sound does not convey meaning or narrative, which is what the musical content is about (at least non contemporary music).


----------



## Eclectic Al

What's a distraction; and what is the essence?

That's another aspect of a performance which I think is subjective.

For me, an indication that a performer is struggling to deliver the piece is distracting. If the strings become a bit ragged at a certain point then that doesn't tell me that this is a group of performers struggling to reveal some inner essence; it tells me that they are struggling, and not quite able to deliver in a way that won't distract me from any inner essence. Going back to recording, it may be that a more ragged take is (subjectively) "better" than a smoother one, because of some other aspect, but the raggedy element is a shame (accepted because it is difficult to get everything right at once). Tremendous technique is great because it makes that less likely or less severe.

To give a parallel, if you are in a really powerful car which is accelerating rapidly, then the feeling of power comes in part from the ease of it. If you are in a less powerful car which is accelerating at the same rate, but you can hear the engine revving hard to do so, then that feels less powerful, not more. There's a distraction from the sense of acceleration and power.

But also for me, if a performer seems to be using the piece to exhibit their technique then that is also distracting. If someone pulls something about a lot, going unfeasibly fast (because they can), and then dropping the sound to a whisper (because they can) then it's about them, not the piece. Hence, making pride in their technique show in their performance is just as distracting.

Here's an assertion (- not sure I believe it myself, but here goes): the best performance of a piece of music is the one that is least controversial or the one that sits at the median. After all, you have a lot of people trying to interpret a piece, and having differences. Surely the one in the middle is going to be the best - the truest if you like that metaphysical stuff.


----------



## mikeh375

NLAdriaan said:


> I just thought that each and every discussion here was purely from a listeners pov And even then, a load of posts in this thread were written by people who didn't even listen to F's recordings. So, let's not overdo the true spirit of this thread.
> 
> Since when do we discuss and generally appreciate modern recordings here at TC? A few days ago, someone posted an overview of modern recordings of a certain piece, of which the most 'modern' was 40+ years old And I don't know who is behind here? Even the live recordings of today, are assembled from several performances and rehearsals. Only radio or bootleg recordings are not. So, 95% of all recordings is a potpourri of spiritual moods. But as listeners, we don't notice it. The human ear doesn't seem to care.


Fair enough.
Your point does bring up some interesting implications for the supposed objective musical ether though. I wonder how many 'definitive' recordings are spliced up tapestries. As a musician who's had to edit my own music from performances, I can honestly say that I can't tell where the edits are after enough time has passed and receded memory. I've edited takes together in front of players before and they've exclaimed that they wouldn't know if they hadn't seen it. Mind you that is a testimony to their consistency of tone and tempo and musicianship.


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I have not assumed anything. I specified that "for us mortals" for that very reason.
> 
> And I am of course speaking as an average listener (whatever it means). Perhaps my listening ability is below average but last time I took test I am quite OK. Professionalism is not really a concern for the average listener and criticisms toward the conductor are meant for appreciation of music among average listeners.
> 
> To suggests that Karajan has all these "superhuman" ability does not explain away his artistic choice intended for the audience who do not possess Karajan's talent (I know he memorized all 30+ opera of Mozart he was the Wunder kid that's why he was the great Maestro).
> 
> It is not the responsibility of the listener to understand the performer (that doesn't mean the listener should not try to understand the performer), but the reverse, it is on the performer to make his intention understood by the intended listeners. To suggest otherwise would be an extraordinary position. If the beauty of the sound is what best characterizes a listening experience (the strongest impression) then it necessarily means that such performance failed to convey meaning to the listener as its primary goal. There are many performances that are more likely to make the listener "understand" the music more (as the strongest impression).
> 
> Performance is about communication (transmission of information in sound waves) and the fundamental problem of a performance in my view, is the curse of knowledge, that the performer always know/hear more than the listener but he/she cannot communicate everything he/she knows to the listener. As a result, the effectiveness to overcoming this curse is a measure of artistic worth. In this view, a successful great artist should not communicate to expert but to laymen, and the amount of information (rationalized as meaning) conveyed is important. If the central message being conveyed to the average listener is that the sound is beautiful, then it is well justified to say it is superficial because beauty of the sound does not convey meaning or narrative, which is what the musical content is about (at least non contemporary music).


 I can't so easily distinguish beauty of sound from musical efficacy and narrative upon the listener, I think they need each other for true comprehension by the audience more than you might acknowledge. I do see the thrust of your point though and can think of at least some crude examples where beauty of sound is purposely avoided in a score. 
I'm also having trouble making your leap about a performer's knowledge somehow inhibiting his expression, which then has to be overcome with artistry, but perhaps I'm about to say what you mean in a slightly different way. The fact is that with each new technical hurdle overcome by a player, there is a gain in musicianship, maturity and feeling. A deeper sensitivity to the things not written on the ms begins to develop - in other words the performer begins to find their aesthetic artistry and freedom which becomes more focused as each technical limitation is dispensed with. In other words, it's not a curse, it's a conduit. It opens the door to self discovery of oneself and the music.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I have not assumed anything. I specified that "for us mortals" for that very reason.
> 
> And I am of course speaking as an average listener (whatever it means). Perhaps my listening ability is below average but last time I took test I am quite OK. Professionalism is not really a concern for the average listener and criticisms toward the conductor are meant for appreciation of music among average listeners.
> 
> To suggests that Karajan has all these "superhuman" ability does not explain away his artistic choice intended for the audience who do not possess Karajan's talent (I know he memorized all 30+ opera of Mozart he was the Wunder kid that's why he was the great Maestro).
> 
> It is not the responsibility of the listener to understand the performer (that doesn't mean the listener should not try to understand the performer), but the reverse, it is on the performer to make his intention understood by the intended listeners. To suggest otherwise would be an extraordinary position. If the beauty of the sound is what best characterizes a listening experience (the strongest impression) then it necessarily means that such performance failed to convey meaning to the listener as its primary goal. There are many performances that are more likely to make the listener "understand" the music more (as the strongest impression).
> 
> Performance is about communication (transmission of information in sound waves) and the fundamental problem of a performance in my view, is the curse of knowledge, that the performer always know/hear more than the listener but he/she cannot communicate everything he/she knows to the listener. As a result, the effectiveness to overcoming this curse is a measure of artistic worth. In this view, a successful great artist should not communicate to expert but to laymen, and the amount of information (rationalized as meaning) conveyed is important. If the central message being conveyed to the average listener is that the sound is beautiful, then it is well justified to say it is superficial because beauty of the sound does not convey meaning or narrative, which is what the musical content is about (at least non contemporary music).


You write some curious things. Karajan memorised 30+ Mozart operas? He only performed 4 of them! :lol:

Of course professionalism is not the concern of the average listener, that's why we are not professional musicians. Neither is talent my concern as I am wanting in that department also, at least as performing goes. So you are saying that knowledge is a curse? The more a performer knows a score the less well they perform it? Strange! Very strange! I find the better I know my subject the better I communicate it.
Whatever our differences of how Furtwangler and Karajan performed, one cannot say either of them were lacking in the knowledge department. Both had a kaleidoscopic knowledge of the works they performed aided by a photographic memory


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

mikeh375 said:


> I can't so easily distinguish beauty of sound from musical efficacy and narrative upon the listener, I think they need each other for true comprehension by the audience more than you might acknowledge. I do see the thrust of your point though and can think of at least crude exceptions where beauty of sound is purposely avoided in a score.
> I'm also having trouble making your leap about a performer's knowledge somehow inhibiting his expression,which has to be overcome with artistry, but perhaps I'm about to say what you mean in a slightly different way. The fact is that with each new technical hurdle overcome by a player, there is a gain in musicianship, maturity and feeling. A deeper sensitivity to the things not written on the ms begins to develop - in other words the performer begins to find their aesthetic artistry and freedom which becomes more focused as each technical limitation is dispensed with. In other words, it's not a curse, it's a conduit.


Thank you for this thoughtful response. I have nothing against the "beauty of sound" in music. I understand that's an integral part of the musical experience/narrative and essential in many context, especially in vocal music.

I was trying to make a point, to explain the that certain performances leave "superficial" impression for the listener, that it should be taken seriously and shouldn't be brushed off as philistine or nonsensical, especially for musicians. Because to be an expert is to be blind, in the sense that it becomes hard to empathize with people without the knowledge you possess. I am from scientific background and this is serious problem for communication within the community.

I admire your poetic take on this problem ("curse of knowledge" is not a term coined by me) but I am a pessimist in the sense that we tend to underestimate the gap precisely because we are the expert. We project phantom abilities onto our audience and assume they will understand but often time they don't, or we don't even know they don't. But this also pave the way for greater artistry like you have aptly phrased. The more you have to say the harder it is to say. What's worse in music is that subjectivity dominates the listening experience. Well intended gesture might have unintended consequences or effects and this is not easily reflected back to the performer, unless the performer anticipates it.

Musicians potentially face a greater hurdle because they are often met with praise and flowers (more like a job well done) even when their audience failed to understand what's going on. The only error correction mechanism is their colleagues who are also experts, so the "curse" is unresolved. Elitist mindset will only serve to worsen communication, because any failure in communication is shifted to the audience's lack of expertise.

Ultimately, it is not the expression that is constrained, but the lack of understanding of the effect of these expressions in listener's mind that creates tensions. The average listener's hearing is always "fuzzy" when compared to a classically trained musician that's why I mentioned the focus or the foreground. Certain artists have this great gift to communicate ideas to the average listener who experience it as being moving and revelatory, Glenn Gould is the prime example (who raised eyebrows of many insiders). The beauty of sound is not that high on the list. Most people couldn't even tell a good sound from a bad sound.


----------



## NLAdriaan

mikeh375 said:


> Fair enough.
> Your point does bring up some interesting implications for the supposed objective musical ether though. I wonder how many 'definitive' recordings are spliced up tapestries. As a musician who's had to edit my own music from performances, I can honestly say that I can't tell where the edits are after enough time has passed and receded memory. I've edited takes together in front of players before and they've exclaimed that they wouldn't know if they hadn't seen it. Mind you that is a testimony to their consistency of tone and tempo and musicianship.


I never would doubt the great skills of top notch musicians. And I prefer a soulful sensitive interpretation over a clinical faultless one. I also believe that both child prodigies and extreme technically skilled musicians might often come short in adding spirit to the music.

The music market just doesn't accept any wrong or missing note. So, the editor of any recording (or film or TV show, for that matter) just keeps on mixing sound and images together.

And you probably shouldn't want to look behind the scenes. It is hard to believe the end result, if you have seen how it was made.

But in all fairness, let's not overdo the 'magic' of a 'definitive' recording, as we all know that it never sounded like that in one go. Maybe we should give the editor/producer more credit on this forum, as he/she oversees and mostly defines the end result.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I never would doubt the great skills of top notch musicians. And I prefer a soulful sensitive interpretation over a clinical faultless one. I also believe that both child prodigies and extreme technically skilled musicians might often come short in adding spirit to the music.
> 
> *The music market just doesn't accept any wrong or missing note. *So, the editor of any recording (or film or TV show, for that matter) just keeps on mixing sound and images together.
> 
> And you probably shouldn't want to look behind the scenes. It is hard to believe the end result, if you have seen how it was made.
> 
> But in all fairness, let's not overdo the 'magic' of a 'definitive' recording, as we all know that it never sounded like that in one go. Maybe we should give the editor/producer more credit on this forum, as he/she oversees and mostly defines the end result.


Won't it? In Karajan'srecording ofStrauss' Domestic Symphony at one point the trumpets are out of tune. When it was pointed out to Karajan he waved it away saying people wouldn't notice. They didn't!


----------



## mikeh375

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this thoughtful response. I have nothing against the "beauty of sound" in music. I understand that's an integral part of the musical experience/narrative and essential in many context, especially in vocal music.
> 
> I was trying to make a point, to explain the that certain performances leave "superficial" impression for the listener, that it should be taken seriously and shouldn't be brushed off as philistine or nonsensical, especially for musicians. Because to be an expert is to be blind, in the sense that it becomes hard to empathize with people without the knowledge you possess. I am from scientific background and this is serious problem for communication within the community.
> 
> I admire your poetic take on this problem ("curse of knowledge" is not a term coined by me) but I am a pessimist in the sense that we tend to underestimate the gap precisely because we are the expert. We project phantom abilities onto our audience and assume they will understand but often time they don't, or we don't even know they don't. But this also pave the way for greater artistry like you have aptly phrased. The more you have to say the harder it is to say. What's worse in music is that subjectivity dominates the listening experience. Well intended gesture might have unintended consequences or effects and this is not easily reflected back to the performer, unless the performer anticipates it.
> 
> Musicians potentially face a greater hurdle because they are often met with praise and flowers (more like a job well done) even when their audience failed to understand what's going on. The only error correction mechanism is their colleagues who are also experts, so the "curse" is unresolved. Elitist mindset will only serve to worsen communication, because any failure in communication is shifted to the audience's lack of expertise.
> 
> Ultimately, it is not the expression that is constrained, but the lack of understanding of the effect of these expressions in listener's mind that creates tensions. The average listener's hearing is always "fuzzy" when compared to a classically trained musician that's why I mentioned the focus or the foreground. Certain artists have this great gift to communicate ideas to the average listener who experience it as being moving and revelatory, Glenn Gould is the prime example (who raised eyebrows of many insiders). The beauty of sound is not that high on the list. Most people couldn't even tell a good sound from a bad sound.


There is undoubtedly a rift between knowledge and the layperson in all disciplines. Composers especially have to make a choice between complexity, comprehension and even popularity and continually tread a path with many off shoots that will lead to different implications for the acceptance of a work. But I wonder if you might be overthinking this problem somewhat in relation to performance and giving specialist individuality too much credit in its ability to wreak aesthetic havoc on the listener.

Our reactions to music are mostly uniform with many more commonalities and understandings than say a reaction to string theory, its math and concept. So although a performer may for example, get carried away and 'overthink' a Bach fugue by highlighting at some point the counter subject instead of the theme, the music is still meaningful and does not have such bad consequences for the listener - in fact perhaps the opposite. Extending this to a score may have a more obfuscating effect perhaps as foreground and background become less defined, but I doubt whether any conductor would tweak a scores balance to that end, nor would want to anyway to such an extent as to obscure important material. If they did they would also be fighting against the acoustic balance orchestrated into the score which also signifies and to a great degree guarantees, a clear message of musical intent from the composer.

The "error correction" you write of is not necessary imv for a performer with regard to interpretation because a player will be versed in the tradition of performance too and that has always served the music first and foremost. There are right and wrong ways to do things but there is of course room for a lateral approach to performance as well.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this thoughtful response. I have nothing against the "beauty of sound" in music. I understand that's an integral part of the musical experience/narrative and essential in many context, especially in vocal music.
> 
> I was trying to make a point, to explain the that certain performances leave "superficial" impression for the listener, that it should be taken seriously and shouldn't be brushed off as philistine or nonsensical, especially for musicians. Because to be an expert is to be blind, in the sense that it becomes hard to empathize with people without the knowledge you possess. I am from scientific background and this is serious problem for communication within the community.
> 
> I admire your poetic take on this problem ("curse of knowledge" is not a term coined by me) but I am a pessimist in the sense that we tend to underestimate the gap precisely because we are the expert. We project phantom abilities onto our audience and assume they will understand but often time they don't, or we don't even know they don't. But this also pave the way for greater artistry like you have aptly phrased. The more you have to say the harder it is to say. What's worse in music is that subjectivity dominates the listening experience. Well intended gesture might have unintended consequences or effects and this is not easily reflected back to the performer, unless the performer anticipates it.
> 
> Musicians potentially face a greater hurdle because they are often met with praise and flowers (more like a job well done) even when their audience failed to understand what's going on. The only error correction mechanism is their colleagues who are also experts, so the "curse" is unresolved. *Elitist mindset will only serve to worsen communication, because any failure in communication is shifted to the audience's lack of expertise.
> *
> Ultimately, it is not the expression that is constrained, but the lack of understanding of the effect of these expressions in listener's mind that creates tensions. The average listener's hearing is always "fuzzy" when compared to a classically trained musician that's why I mentioned the focus or the foreground. Certain artists have this great gift to communicate ideas to the average listener who experience it as being moving and revelatory, Glenn Gould is the prime example (who raised eyebrows of many insiders). The beauty of sound is not that high on the list.* Most people couldn't even tell a good sound from a bad sound*.


Why do you then write with an elitist mindset point of view?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh.
> 
> Welcome, RW, to the millionrainbows dungeon for "ultra-rationalist-nihilists," to whom great art is as alien and meaningless as the extinct language of the extinct inhabitants of Atlantis. You must have done something terribly rational to be threatened with imprisonment here. In my case it was insisting too often that words should be used to convey actual meanings (a pernicious habit of "rationalists," I suppose) that I was assigned a place in this pit of darkness, and now I'm condemned to quiver in what I'm told is helpless incomprehension before the busts of Bach, Beethoven and Wagner (I replace the traditional "Brahms" with "Wagner" because this forum is filled with my apparently ignorant essays on that composer's art, the real "payoff" from which I might be condemned to wait until a deathbed conversion to spiritualism, theosophy or some other species of Woo Woo allows me a glimpse across the Murky Moat of Musical Ignorance into the Shining Fortress of True Artistic Understanding).


You're hilarious, Woodduck! But accurate. That's me to a 'T.'
B.F. Skinner's mother wears army boots!



> Honestly, though I may be languishing in darkness down here, I've always found quite a powerful "payoff" from art, having been a happy, successful and much appreciated (and paid) practitioner of the musical, visual and verbal arts all of my seventy years. It makes a man wonder: is it possible that I don't "believe in nothing" after all?


I guess we'll all find out eventually!


----------



## mmsbls

There's a lot of very interesting discussion in this thread, but recently, there are also a lot of negative personal comments. Please focus on content and not on other members.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You're hilarious, Woodduck! But accurate. That's me to a 'T.'
> B.F. Skinner wears army boots!
> 
> I guess we'll all find out eventually!


How will you find out? Have you commissioned Mary Trump to write a book about me?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Here's a recording that gets lost in the Furtwangler discography: the 1953 VPO Beethoven 9th. We always hear about three WF 9ths - 1942 BPO, 1951 Bayreuth, and 1954 Lucerne. But this one deserves to be included in that group. It still baffles me that DG did not include it in their complete Furt set, especially since there is no other 9th in that set. First of all the sound is great for a live 50s performance, very present. It is better sound quality than the 1942 and 1951 9ths, and the performance is more alert than 1954 Lucerne. My only quibble is that the Viennese chorus could be more powerful (same problem as with Karajan's 9ths). What is it with Viennese choruses? :lol: But the soloists are great, maybe the best on any Furtwangler 9th.






I noted one comment in particular in the YouTube comments.

"*I've heard many recordings of this Symphony (they all kind of sound the same...and not very creative in my opinion...). This guy really infuses his own genius into this piece which gives it a new vitality and 'freshness' that I've been looking for. It really feels like the piece is living as it should be! Bravo!*"

This sort of encapsulates the answer to the OP, as well as the philosophical questions over the last dozens of pages. Furtwangler gave us intensely personal readings. He abhored routine, detached performances that merely followed the letter of the law, which is what this listener is talking about in his first sentence.

Furtwangler told us what he loved about the pieces he conducted, the truths he saw in them if you will. Some argue that personalizing classical music is "wrong." There are objective standards you must follow, dictated by the score and what you are taught in music school. Furt essentially turns his back on this idea. In fact he abhors it. In order for music to live, we must personally identify with and internalize it. We must show the listener why the music is meaningful to us.

My thesis is that this sort of subjective individual treatment IS the road to the musical truth - paradoxically - not slavishly following so-called objective instructions. Why? Because ultimately truth is about what connects us as human beings, what we identify with in each other. This is why we commune together around these works in the first place.

Simply slavishly following musical instructions depersonalizes the music and gets us further - paradoxically - from the musical truth that represents the connecting force of the music. It is subjective, personal interpretation that gets us closer to universal music truth, the connection we all feel within the music.

The details of interpretation are not so important, the decisions over this phrase or that tempo. It is the connection that comes across. This is why we can often respond to interpretations that are often quite different from each other. They are both "right" in that they represent a personal passion and conviction.

The issue is when people depersonalize classical music by creating so-called efficient methods for getting the music "done" accurately. And then these people compete over who can be the most "correct." This only serves the performers' egos. It does not connect with the public. And often these same people actually scoff at the public, as if they are irrelevant. This only furthers the public disconnection with classical music.

What I have experienced as a classical music performer is that you are expected to do things the "right" way and shamed if you try to individually express the music as you connect to it. You often get people quoting authority to further explain why you are "wrong." And then we get the HIP movement.

No wonder a friend of mine, a non-classical fan, once told me he doesn't listen to it because it comes across as "academic." It shouldn't be.


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> There's a lot of very interesting discussion in this thread, but recently, there are also a lot of negative personal comments. Please focus on content and not on other members.


I don't believe it was I, but please let me know otherwise. I feel I'm on my best behavior (B.F. Skinner pun).


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Here's a recording that gets lost in the Furtwangler discography: the 1953 VPO Beethoven 9th. We always hear about three WF 9ths - 1942 BPO, 1951 Bayreuth, and 1954 Lucerne. But this one deserves to be included in that group. It still baffles me that DG did not include it in their complete Furt set, especially since there is no other 9th in that set. First of all the sound is great for a live 50s performance, very present. It is better sound quality than the 1942 and 1951 9ths, and the performance is more alert than 1954 Lucerne. My only quibble is that the Viennese chorus could be more powerful (same problem as with Karajan's 9ths). What is it with Viennese choruses? :lol:..."*I've heard many recordings of this Symphony (they all kind of sound the same...and not very creative in my opinion...). This guy really infuses his own genius into this piece which gives it a new vitality and 'freshness' that I've been looking for. It really feels like the piece is living as it should be! Bravo!*" This sort of encapsulates the answer to the OP, as well as the philosophical questions over the last dozens of pages. Furtwangler gave us intensely personal readings. He abhored routine, detached performances that merely followed the letter of the law, which is what this listener is talking about in his first sentence.


Speaking of Furtwangler and being on-topic, might I suggest Furtwangler's 1954 reading with the Wiener Philharmonic. It's the string orchestra version (of course).


----------



## millionrainbows

What I like the most about Furtwangler is his handling of dynamic contrasts. I just listened to the above recording, and it shows this. Especially in the third movement of No.7, and its finale. The 8th is impeccable also, and his reading of the Grosse Fugue is clear, articulate, and sheds light on the themes and their transformations like no other I've heard. The sound is very good for a 1954 recording.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My thesis is that this sort of subjective individual treatment IS the road to the musical truth - paradoxically - not slavishly following so-called objective instructions. Why? Because ultimately truth is about what connects us as human beings, what we identify with in each other. This is why we commune together around these works in the first place.


I completely agree with your entire post, especially this part. And thanks for the recommendation. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> How will you find out? Have you commissioned Mary Trump to write a book about me?


If I do, would you like us to use the "evil father" approach, or would you prefer something else?


----------



## JAS

As a literary and movie device, the evil father theme is overdone, I think. (It ruined the remake of The Wolfman, which was basically just another rehash of that idea. Even Anthony Hopkins could not save it, and it was one of his more "dialed in" performances.)


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Here's a recording that gets lost in the Furtwangler discography: the 1953 VPO Beethoven 9th. We always hear about three WF 9ths - 1942 BPO, 1951 Bayreuth, and 1954 Lucerne. But this one deserves to be included in that group. It still baffles me that DG did not include it in their complete Furt set, especially since there is no other 9th in that set. First of all the sound is great for a live 50s performance, very present. It is better sound quality than the 1942 and 1951 9ths, and the performance is more alert than 1954 Lucerne. My only quibble is that the Viennese chorus could be more powerful (same problem as with Karajan's 9ths). What is it with Viennese choruses? :lol: But the soloists are great, maybe the best on any Furtwangler 9th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noted one comment in particular in the YouTube comments.
> 
> "*I've heard many recordings of this Symphony (they all kind of sound the same...and not very creative in my opinion...). This guy really infuses his own genius into this piece which gives it a new vitality and 'freshness' that I've been looking for. It really feels like the piece is living as it should be! Bravo!*"
> 
> This sort of encapsulates the answer to the OP, as well as the philosophical questions over the last dozens of pages. Furtwangler gave us intensely personal readings. He abhored routine, detached performances that merely followed the letter of the law, which is what this listener is talking about in his first sentence.
> 
> Furtwangler told us what he loved about the pieces he conducted, the truths he saw in them if you will. Some argue that personalizing classical music is "wrong." There are objective standards you must follow, dictated by the score and what you are taught in music school. Furt essentially turns his back on this idea. In fact he abhors it. In order for music to live, we must personally identify with and internalize it. We must show the listener why the music is meaningful to us.
> 
> My thesis is that this sort of subjective individual treatment IS the road to the musical truth - paradoxically - not slavishly following so-called objective instructions. Why? Because ultimately truth is about what connects us as human beings, what we identify with in each other. This is why we commune together around these works in the first place.
> 
> Simply slavishly following musical instructions depersonalizes the music and gets us further - paradoxically - from the musical truth that represents the connecting force of the music. It is subjective, personal interpretation that gets us closer to universal music truth, the connection we all feel within the music.
> 
> The details of interpretation are not so important, the decisions over this phrase or that tempo. It is the connection that comes across. This is why we can often respond to interpretations that are often quite different from each other. They are both "right" in that they represent a personal passion and conviction.
> 
> The issue is when people depersonalize classical music by creating so-called efficient methods for getting the music "done" accurately. And then these people compete over who can be the most "correct." This only serves the performers' egos. It does not connect with the public. And often these same people actually scoff at the public, as if they are irrelevant. This only furthers the public disconnection with classical music.
> 
> What I have experienced as a classical music performer is that you are expected to do things the "right" way and shamed if you try to individually express the music as you connect to it. You often get people quoting authority to further explain why you are "wrong." And then we get the HIP movement.
> 
> No wonder a friend of mine, a non-classical fan, once told me he doesn't listen to it because it comes across as "academic." It shouldn't be.


You have a curious way of arguing as if there is a choice between getting the music accurate and having a musical approach. This is a false dichotomy. You also drive a false dichotomy between a highly personal performance and a slavish and mechanical following of the score. There are plenty of performances which are highly musical and full of personality but which are accurate and well played at the same time. When you get a highly skilled orchestra they can do both. I must confess in this performance the first movement drags. It should surely be more dynamic than this. But tastes vary I suppose.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You have a curious way of arguing as if there is a choice between getting the music accurate and having a musical approach. This is a false dichotomy. You also drive a false dichotomy between a highly personal performance and a slavish and mechanical following of the score. There are plenty of performances which are highly musical and full of personality but which are accurate and well played at the same time. When you get a highly skilled orchestra they can do both. *I must confess in this performance the first movement drags.* It should surely be more dynamic than this. But tastes vary I suppose.


I completely agree that the first movement drags, at least at the very beginning. And yet I still like it. Why? That is the key to understanding what I am saying.

As I stated in my post: "The details of interpretation are not so important, the decisions over this phrase or that tempo. It is the connection that comes across. This is why we can often respond to interpretations that are often quite different from each other. They are both "right" in that they represent a personal passion and conviction."

I never said that personal identification with the score and precision are mutually exclusive. That is a straw man.

It is when precision and "accuracy" REPLACE personal identification with the score that routine performances develop. As Furtwangler states, it is only when he has mastered the basics that the real work of the conductor begins. You have implied in prior responses, "Isn't it enough to play the notes correctly?" No, it is not enough.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Let me say this about precision. It has been said on this thread that if everyone simply employs their own individual version of the objective truth, then we just end up with a million different versions. The implication is that it is preferable to have everyone agree on some "objective" standard.

Similarly, you can have a conductor who puts all the emphasis on everyone playing together, the Toscanini/Reiner/Solti/Szell way, and then you have clean performances that present a clear vision. By contrast, if players are encouraged to individually "follow their heart" they will often not be together as they take more risks and leaps of faith together. But the counter benefit is you end up with a performance that communicates that spirit of the music. It's visceral. It's personal.

The BPO timpanist Werner Tharichen had this remarkable description of playing for Furtwangler. He said when a conductor is so open with you, and you are free and invited to join him, this is when you make the kind of music that moves people. Furtwangler was not on the podium enforcing togetherness as do so many conductors. He was immersing himself in the music, and the players were INVITED to join him. That is a very deep concept. It explains why the performances had such a powerful impact.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Let me say this about precision. It has been said on this thread that if everyone simply employs their own individual version of the objective truth, then we just end up with a million different versions. The implication is that it is preferable to have everyone agree on some "objective" standard.
> 
> Similarly, you can have a conductor who puts all the emphasis on everyone playing together, the Toscanini/Reiner/Solti/Szell way, and then you have clean performances that present a clear vision. By contrast, if players are encouraged to individually "follow their heart" they will often not be together as they take more risks and leaps of faith together. But the counter benefit is you end up with a performance that communicates that spirit of the music. It's visceral. It's personal.
> 
> The BPO timpanist Werner Tharichen had this remarkable description of playing for Furtwangler. He said when a conductor is so open with you, and you are free and invited to join him, this is when you make the kind of music that moves people. Furtwangler was not on the podium enforcing togetherness as do so many conductors. He was immersing himself in the music, and the players were INVITED to join him. That is a very deep concept. It explains why the performances had such a powerful impact.


Hi
I thought it might be more helpful to ignore how we get there, but consider the outcome - otherwise, we'll just go round in circles again.
You see, I agree with you that I want lots of different approaches. What matters to me is if my sense is that a performance is "sincere". I feel that about arguments too: I don't mind if people disagree with me (and after all it's not for me to tell them what they should think), as long as they have values (which I might not share, but can respect) and they are sincerely following them.
I get to my feeling that different, but all "sincere" approaches, are desirable because I don't believe in an objective standard. You seem to get to the same place via an argument that I sincerely don't understand. But we do seem to end up in not dissimilar places. :angel:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Hi
> I thought it might be more helpful to ignore how we get there, but consider the outcome - otherwise, we'll just go round in circles again.
> You see, I agree with you that I want lots of different approaches. What matters to me is if my sense is that a performance is "sincere". I feel that about arguments too: I don't mind if people disagree with me (and after all it's not for me to tell them what they should think), as long as they have values (which I might not share, but can respect) and they are sincerely following them.
> I get to my feeling that different, but all "sincere" approaches, are desirable because I don't believe in an objective standard. You seem to get to the same place via an argument that I sincerely don't understand. But we do seem to end up in not dissimilar places. :angel:


Basically, my issue in both everyday argument and in music interpretation is when someone says "Your way is invalid because some authority figure has declared it to be so." Give me YOUR view as a counter argument to mine.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I completely agree that the first movement drags. And yet I still like it. Why? That is the key to understanding what I am saying.
> 
> As I stated in my post: "The details of interpretation are not so important, the decisions over this phrase or that tempo. It is the connection that comes across. This is why we can often respond to interpretations that are often quite different from each other. They are both "right" in that they represent a personal passion and conviction."
> 
> I never said that personal identification with the score and precision are mutually exclusive. That is a straw man.
> 
> It is when precision and "accuracy" REPLACE personal identification with the score that routine performances develop. As Furtwangler states, it is only when he has mastered the basics that the real work of the conductor begins. You have implied in prior responses, "Isn't it enough to play the notes correctly?" No, it is not enough.


Sorry mate, but it is you who made the straw man. You are the one who was implying mutual exclusion. Read your post again. I never know why we must make these points that 'it isn't enough to play the notes correctly'. I would have thought that was obvious and something we all took for granted.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Why do you then write with an elitist mindset point of view?


I didn't, it's a fact that people without training has less discernment of a "good" or "bad" sound according to musicians' standard. That's why training is necessary in the first place. I am not casting any judgement on it.

Instead you have implicitly assumed I did, which indicates that you presupposes such judgement attached with this fact (a sign of elitism, which I don't personally object outside the specific reason I mentioned).

It is precisely because that people don't have all well trained listening ability, that musicians should be aware of their relentlessly pursuit for technical/quantified perfection. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the pursuit of perfection. I am well aware that modern performances have higher technical standard due to better training and institutional reasons. And I mostly listen to recent releases instead of old classics because I believe music is a living thing.

Nothing is black and white. It's a matter of priority. To suggest that we can get the best of both world is missing the point: there is always a trade off for musicians and listeners. There are much more discernable qualities of music that have been sidelined than going for 99.9% perfect execution vs 99% perfect execution according to professional standard. There is significant diminishing marginal rate of return of getting that 0.1% improvement (still admirable) because people don't hear them, and rightly so. Delving into the mono recordings you quickly find this expressive freedom, personality, and risk-taking that is often lacking in today's performances and competitions (not always but in general).

Most viewers do no care about the mastery of strokes, line works, fabrics details, human anatomy, subtle shading, balance of color, and compositional complexity when they look at a painting (rightly so and doesn't mean they can't), they care about the holistic visual experience, the story it tells, and it's hidden meanings in different context. To celebrate the superb craftsmanship on display regardless of how well it tells the story or how banal the story is, is in a way "superficial".

Eastern aesthetics has long been aware of this and even incorporated various imperfections and defects (element of chance, like chance music and improvisation) as essential element in their high art a thousand years ago (craft, architecture, painting and calligraphy), as an imitation/invitation of nature (Aristotle's ideal of art) and a gesture to embrace human vulnerability and freedom. An apparently "perfect" stroke in calligraphy would often be considered vulgar and unsophisticated, despite thousands of hours of practice went into them. The artistry lies in how you break free of the prison of perfection, and how you balance the perfect and the imperfect (similar to pre WWII "erratic" performance practices), which is summarized in the old adage "the only rule in art is that there is no fixed rule" or the old adage "there is no winner in art".

It is valid to say certain "performances" are superficial from multiple perspectives. It's an aesthetic statement or critique. In my view, the defendant should point out why the seemingly superficial impression or effects serve a sophisticated purpose in relation to its musical content, what function does it serve in the grand scheme of things, rather than countering with the obvious "beauty of sound is what musicians strive for", "musicians have high technical standard", "execution matters and it enables interpretive freedom" etc.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I didn't, it's a fact that people without training has less discernment of a "good" or "bad" sound according to musicians' standard. That's why training is necessary in the first place. I am not casting any judgement on it.
> 
> Instead you have implicitly assumed I did, which indicates that you presupposes such judgement attached with this fact (a sign of elitism, which I don't personally object outside the specific reason I mentioned).
> 
> It is precisely because that people don't have all well trained listening ability, that musicians should be aware of their relentlessly pursuit for technical/quantified perfection. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the pursuit of perfection. I am well aware that modern performances have higher technical standard due to better training and institutional reasons. And I mostly listen to recent releases instead of old classics because I believe music is a living thing.
> 
> Nothing is black and white. It's a matter of priority. To suggest that we can get the best of both world is missing the point: there is always a trade off for musicians and listeners. There are much more discernable qualities of music that have been sidelined than going for 99.9% perfect execution vs 99% perfect execution according to professional standard. There is significant diminishing marginal rate of return of getting that 0.1% improvement (still admirable) because people don't hear them, and rightly so. Delving into the mono recordings you quickly find this expressive freedom, personality, and risk-taking that is often lacking in today's performances and competitions (not always but in general).
> 
> Most viewers do no care about the mastery of strokes, line works, fabrics details, human anatomy, subtle shading, balance of color, and compositional complexity when they look at a painting (rightly so and doesn't mean they can't), they care about the holistic visual experience, the story it tells, and it's hidden meanings in different context. To celebrate the superb craftsmanship on display regardless of how well it tells the story or how banal the story is, is in a way "superficial".
> 
> Eastern aesthetics has long been aware of this and even incorporated various imperfections and defects (element of chance, like chance music and improvisation) as essential element in their high art a thousand years ago (craft, architecture, painting and calligraphy), as an imitation/invitation of nature (Aristotle's ideal of art) and a gesture to embrace human vulnerability and freedom. An apparently "perfect" stroke in calligraphy would often be considered vulgar and unsophisticated, despite thousands of hours of practice went into them. The artistry lies in how you break free of the prison of perfection, and how you balance the perfect and the imperfect (similar to pre WWII "erratic" performance practices), which is summarized in the old adage "the only rule in art is that there is no fixed rule" or the old adage "there is no winner in art".
> 
> It is valid to say certain "performances" are superficial from multiple perspectives. It's an aesthetic statement or critique. In my view, the defendant should point out why the seemingly superficial impression or effects serve a sophisticated purpose in relation to its musical content, what function does it serve in the grand scheme of things, rather than countering with the obvious "beauty of sound is what musicians strive for", "musicians have high technical standard", "execution matters and it enables interpretive freedom" etc.


So your point is?


----------



## Bulldog

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It is valid to say certain "performances" are superficial from multiple perspectives. It's an aesthetic statement or critique. In my view, the defendant should point out why the seemingly superficial impression or effects serve a sophisticated purpose in relation to its musical content, what function does it serve in the grand scheme of things, rather than countering with the obvious "beauty of sound is what musicians strive for", "musicians have high technical standard", "execution matters and it enables interpretive freedom" etc.


I agree with the above. By the way, I didn't know we have defendants among us. Sure hope they are given legal representation. :lol:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> So your point is?


For someone who pride himself on the ability to "focus on multiple things all at once", that question is surprising.

Let me spell it out for you: it's OK to say one performance is superficial, the other is deep.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For someone who pride himself on the ability to "focus on multiple things all at once", that question is surprising.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you: it's OK to say one performance is superficial, the other is deep.


(Slight diversion) It's OK to say that. But it will be a matter of taste.

The physical profile of the sound waves hitting your ear drums from an orchestra or a stereo does not admit of characterisations like 'deep' vs 'superficial'. _What gave rise_ to these sound waves might admit of characterisations like 'a pause was observed here' or 'rubato occured there'. However, I don't see how these characterisations, in and of themselves, imply 'deep' or 'superficial' - not without 'missing premises' to plug an inferential gap between, e.g., 'pause at bar X' and 'deep/superficial' - where the missing premises relate to the subjective desires of individual listeners (or the intersubjective desires of a group of listeners).

Objection: 'But what about pauses or rubato (etc.) induced by a complete amateur? Imagine a child picked up the baton and conducted the Berlin Philharmonic in a performance of the Funeral March from the Eroica?!'

Rejoinder: Nothing has changed, if we're still taking about characterisations like 'deep' or 'superficial'. The most we can objectively say is that the child played this or that bar:

1. Not according to the score, and/or
2. Not according to subjective/intersubjective taste

Of course, nothing is stopping (potentially very interesting) discussion along the lines of "_I found_ this performance superficial because of X, Y or Z".


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> (Slight diversion) It's OK to say that. But it will be a matter of taste.
> 
> The physical profile of the sound waves hitting your ear drums from an orchestra or a stereo does not admit of characterisations like 'deep' vs 'superficial'. _What gave rise_ to these sound waves might admit of characterisations like 'a pause was observed here' or 'rubato occured there'. However, I don't see how these characterisations, in and of themselves, imply 'deep' or 'superficial' - not without 'missing premises' to plug an inferential gap between, e.g., 'pause at bar X' and 'deep/superficial' - where the missing premises relate to the subjective desires of individual listeners (or the intersubjective desires of a group of listeners).
> 
> Objection: 'But what about pauses or rubato (etc.) induced by a complete amateur? Imagine a child picked up the baton and conducted the Berlin Philharmonic in a performance of the Funeral March from the Eroica?!'
> 
> Rejoinder: Nothing has changed, if we're still taking about characterisations like 'deep' or 'superficial'. The most we can objectively say is that the child played this or that bar:
> 
> 1. Not according to the score, and/or
> 2. Not according to subjective/intersubjective taste
> 
> Of course, nothing is stopping (potentially very interesting) discussion along the lines of "_I found_ this performance superficial because of X, Y or Z".


I enjoy the analysis and agree with it in general. I am going to share my thoughts to expand a bit.

The way I see it, the "physical profile of the sound wave" is music as information, which in itself, cannot be deep or superficial, or good or bad. I agree with that because the same piece of information can be transformed into different equivalent representations, such as being encoded as digital information, which is just a stream of 0s and 1s ordered in certain ways, that's not music.

If you analyze it objectively, that is, to treat such information as a fixed object, you discover characteristics or properties of these information such as "rubato" or "pause" as you have mentioned. In fact, a computer can recognize these patterns but cannot make sense of them, so I agree with you again, you can't say that's deep or superficial, they are all meaningless.

However, that's not music. A simple program could have recognizes all the characteristics of a score or a sound file, but music does not happen during that process. It is the information processing in the brain of the such information that manifest itself as music. In my view, music is a consciousness phenomena, i.e., the information processing, not the information. This is a purely materialistic view.

Now to make sense during this information processing (which happens mostly in auditory cortex of the right brain), the frontal lobe (Hippocampus if the experience is strong) will then convert them (as neuron firing) into working memory (which physically strengths neural links), and some of it are intensified by the (unconscious) emotional pathway to Amygdala as emotional memory. I am simplifying because this process is incredibly complex and cannot really be fully described. Then the left brain part of the frontal lobe try to recollect the stored information and make sense of them through the phonological loop (the inner ear like what Beethoven was using). The frontal lobe also direct attention (magnifying certain music experience) which enhances what information being memorized.

The point is that you can only make sense of the music by recollecting the processed information, which depends all sorts of things. The actual experience involve very little "rational thinking" plus the directed attention which determines what can be analyzed and put to words later. Making sense of the music requires processed information being memorized in the first place (that's why directing attention is important) and also how the these recollections are connected with other parts of the memories, whether visual cortex is activated (image), episodic memory is activated (past events),amygdala is activated (emotional response) and etc. The experience would be "deep" if more of these mechanisms were activated to create deeper (neural) connections (meaning).

From this perspective, really great music experience has to be "indescribable" or "spiritual" because the language system simply cannot cope with what has been experienced.

The sensory perception pathway is just one part of it, that's why if something that only appeals to the senses (or only such memory has been stored), the rationalized experience of music would come off as "superficial" simply because only a small part of the brain was engaged. It the conductor's intention is to direct the listener to the "sensual" part of music, then its effect may well come off as superficial and unsatisfactory, especially for people who has experienced and expecting greater effects.

The extra information or para-text "rubato by amateur" or "BPO under a child's baton" can have unforeseen effects (because from Behavioral science humans are susceptible to "framing") or have not effect at all. But ultimately it is the text (musical information) that matters.

That's why my attitude is to be cautious about too much "rationalization" of music experience because it might not be "honest" at all. Again, the neurons that were firing during the music experience are mostly not those who are in charge of the "rationalization". We like to think ourselves as a holistic subject that has total control of our thought but that's just an illusion (it's mostly your prefrontal cortex), that's why I say even the idea of I the cogito is metaphysical in nature.

I am aware that there are people here who feel offended about the word "superficial". But people 
are using words like "the best", "the greatest" all the time and we know what they really mean. I agree that we should try to justify as best as we can but people shouldn't be lynched by saying it.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For someone who pride himself on the ability to "focus on multiple things all at once", that question is surprising.
> 
> Let me spell it out for you: it's OK to say one performance is superficial, the other is deep.


The fact is you multiplied words with giving berry little meaning to them - apart from to yourself maybe! The objective of language is to communicate with someone else. A good communicator will do that. To me most of what you said was self-contradictory waffle which is why I asked the question.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> The fact is you multiplied words with giving berry little meaning to them - apart from to yourself maybe! The objective of language is to communicate with someone else. A good communicator will do that. To me most of what you said was self-contradictory waffle which is why I asked the question.


That's a bit unfair in my perhaps biased eyes. I do try to be as substantive as possible and be careful with what I say. The jab at you was meant as a measured response to your unnecessary attacks, which I do regret.

But it seems I have failed to communicate with you. I apologize for my "self-contradictory" waffles. I certainly don't mean to waste your time and I appreciate the exchange.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's a bit unfair in my perhaps biased eyes. I do try to be as substantive as possible and be careful with what I say. The jab at you was meant as a measured response to your unnecessary attacks, which I do regret.
> 
> But it seems I have failed to communicate with you. I apologize for my "self-contradictory" waffles. I certainly don't mean to waste your time and I appreciate the exchange.


Why is the people assume that when one disagrees with something that they are 'attacking' somebody? We are not attacking anybody here, just debating with people. There is no need for attacks or jabs just debate. We are music lovers, my friend, and can debate without attacks and jabs. Peace friend!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *You have a curious way of arguing as if there is a choice between getting the music accurate and having a musical approach. This is a false dichotomy.* Y*ou also drive a false dichotomy between a highly personal performance and a slavish and mechanical following of the score.* There are plenty of performances which are highly musical and full of personality but which are accurate and well played at the same time. When you get a highly skilled orchestra they can do both. I must confess in this performance the first movement drags. It should surely be more dynamic than this. But tastes vary I suppose.


This is a complete misrepresentation of what Brahmsianhorn said, as anyone who reads him should be able to see. It's also wrong to imply that there is no inconsistency between "a highly personal performance and a slavish and mechanical following of the score." In musical performance, "slavish and mechanical" is opposed to "highly personal." In fact, I'd say it's opposed to any sort of interpretation, and indeed to the entire purpose of performing and listening to music. No one (I hope) ever praised a performance as "magnificently slavish and mechanical."


----------



## NLAdriaan

Why are CM-listeners so fixated on the square inch? Maybe because we keep listening to the same few musical pieces all the time, just interpreted by different people. And the CM music business keeps on teaching, playing and selling us the same music over and over again. The interpretative differences are too small to notice, compared to the differences between various musical pieces. You have to listen to many recordings to know any subtle difference. Yet, we keep on saying that one recording totally sucks and the other reveals the magical truth. Isn't it strange that musical students across the globe are learning to reproduce music that already exists long before they were born and has been played and recorded by many others. What fun is it to only reproduce something that already has been done endless times before, only to be evaluated by people who don't have such skills themselves, but only to kill your efforts or, even worse, to kill the evaluation of others, because they obviously didn't understand anything of it.

Quite sad actually, isn't it a pretty crowded square inch where we spend our time? Maybe it is time to open a window, to learn a new piece of music every day, a new genre, a new artform, a new skill, a new person.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

NLAdriaan said:


> Quite sad actually, isn't it a pretty crowded square inch where we spend our time? Maybe it is time to open a window, to learn a new piece of music every day, a new genre, a new artform, a new skill, a new person.


You've nailed the absurdity of it.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> W.
> 
> Quite sad actually, isn't it a pretty crowded square inch where we spend our time? Maybe it is time to open a window, to learn a new piece of music every day, a new genre, a new artform, a new skill, a new person.


Why most of us are probably not actually in the CM business. My own outlet for my skills -such as they are - is certainly not this crowded and hyper-talented field. I advised someone the other Day not to go into music but keep it as a hobby. Why frustrate yourself when you can do something like medicine?


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> Why are CM-listeners so fixated on the square inch? Maybe because we keep listening to the same few musical pieces all the time, just interpreted by different people. And the CM music business keeps on teaching, playing and selling us the same music over and over again. The interpretative differences are too small to notice, compared to the differences between various musical pieces. You have to listen to many recordings to know any subtle difference. Yet, we keep on saying that one recording totally sucks and the other reveals the magical truth. Isn't it strange that musical students across the globe are learning to reproduce music that already exists long before they were born and has been played and recorded by many others. What fun is it to only reproduce something that already has been done endless times before, only to be evaluated by people who don't have such skills themselves, but only to kill your efforts or, even worse, to kill the evaluation of others, because they obviously didn't understand anything of it.
> 
> Quite sad actually, isn't it a pretty crowded square inch where we spend our time? Maybe it is time to open a window, to learn a new piece of music every day, a new genre, a new artform, a new skill, a new person.


What is "quite sad?" CM listeners and performers are an extremely varied lot. Some have wide-ranging musical interests, others are more limited in their focus. Does this occasion criticism of anyone in particular, or generalizations about everyone in general? And what's so "strange" about focusing on music of the past? Do you know of any present-day Mozarts we all ought to run out and hear?

How on earth would you know which of us "open new windows" and learn new music, new genres, new artforms, new skills? Or get to know new persons? Classical music is a field so immense that one can easily and happily spend a lifetime digging into a part of it. I haven't noticed that musicians and listeners to classical music have particularly impoverished lives. Quite the contrary, I'd say.

If you feel the need to get out more, do it, and never mind how the rest of us take our pleasures. Just don't forget to observe social distancing and wear a mask.


----------



## Barbebleu

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Isn’t it amazing how a seemingly innocuous question can generate such acrimony?

I have nothing to contribute to this thread in any substantive way as Furtwängler is not in my pantheon of favourite, (N.B. not greatest) conductors. However I have a question for all those who are reading this, or for that matter any, thread. 

If one feels that they have found a conductor who reaches the parts other conductors don’t, and has played one of your favourite pieces, e.g. the Beethoven 3rd, in a manner that totally satisfies all your emotional and intellectual needs, why would you bother to listen to any other conductor doing the same piece if it’s not going to fulfil any of your expectations?

I suppose the reason that I listen to different versions of the same thing is because I’ve yet to hear that transcendent version that makes the rest redundant. 

Can any of you say the same thing or do you Furtwängler devotees feel that he does the job absolutely perfectly and others need not apply?


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread. Isn't it amazing how a seemingly innocuous question can generate such acrimony?
> 
> I have nothing to contribute to this thread in any substantive way as Furtwängler is not in my pantheon of favourite, (N.B. not greatest) conductors. However I have a question for all of this who are reading this, or for that matter any, thread.
> 
> If *one feels that they have found a conductor who reaches the parts other conductors don't, and has played one of your favourite pieces, e.g. the Beethoven 3rd, in a manner that totally satisfies all your emotional and intellectual needs, why would you bother to listen to any other conductor doing the same piece if it's not going to fulfil any of your expectations?*
> 
> I suppose the reason that I listen to different versions of the same thing is because I've yet to hear that transcendent version that makes the rest redundant.
> 
> Can any of you say the same thing or do you Furtwängler devotees feel that he does the job absolutely perfectly and others need not apply?


I think there are conductors Who give pretty satisfying versions of the piece but that doesn't mean other conductors haven't light to show on it. I can never quite understand these people who say they only listen to one interpretation or one singer. Are used to do this as a lad when I could only afford one version of each but these days I have multiple versions. Surely variety is the spice of life. We had the privilege of listening to a whole range of very distinguished artists so why not take advantage? After all if we don't like them there is always the 'off' switch.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Barbebleu said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread. Isn't it amazing how a seemingly innocuous question can generate such acrimony?
> 
> I have nothing to contribute to this thread in any substantive way as Furtwängler is not in my pantheon of favourite, (N.B. not greatest) conductors. However I have a question for all of this who are reading this, or for that matter any, thread.
> 
> If one feels that they have found a conductor who reaches the parts other conductors don't, and has played one of your favourite pieces, e.g. the Beethoven 3rd, in a manner that totally satisfies all your emotional and intellectual needs, why would you bother to listen to any other conductor doing the same piece if it's not going to fulfil any of your expectations?
> 
> I suppose the reason that I listen to different versions of the same thing is because I've yet to hear that transcendent version that makes the rest redundant.
> 
> Can any of you say the same thing or do you Furtwängler devotees feel that he does the job absolutely perfectly and others need not apply?


I made the point earlier that it is just the opposite. I don't know anyone who listens to only Furtwangler. He is my favorite conductor in my favorite repertoire, but precisely because it is my favorite repertoire I have dozens of other versions.

Where in this thread have you gotten the impression that anyone thinks Furtwanger, or any other conductor, fully satisfies our desire for quality performance? I have said the opposite - that there is no such thing as a perfect performance. It exists only in the abstract. We are always searching for it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

There are remarkably few recordings that I find so definitive that I feel no need to hear any other. The two that come to mind are Gardiner's Archiv Monteverdi Vespers and Dorati's Mercury 1812 Overture, recordings where I feel the performance and sound quality are such that I cannot imagine a more satisfying version. Even so, I also enjoy Golovanov's off-the-wall 1812, and I am trying to enjoy Parrott's Monteverdi Vespers even though it strikes me as tame and studious.


----------



## millionrainbows

With composers like John Cage, the problem is completely bypassed: no two performances sound alike anyway! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Listening to a version or artist you consider "weaker" is valuable. It reinforces the reason why you like your "stronger" version.

Also, especially with more modern and serial works, "weak/strong" are not absolutes, but can be replaced by "different." These differences can be artists, recording, or production. For example, I still like Robert Craft's Complete Webern (in mono) on Columbia Special Products vinyl.

Also, now & then a new artist comes along and knocks your socks off, like Giuliani Carmignola's Vivaldi violin concertos.

Especially with modern music of under-recorded composers like Feldman, the newer MODE series is wonderful.


----------



## Duncan

Post deleted - wrong thread... sigh... idiot...


----------



## millionrainbows

*Explain fascination with Furtwangler: *for some reason, every time I see his image, I want to dance with him.


----------



## Coach G

NLAdriaan said:


> Why are CM-listeners so fixated on the square inch? Maybe because we keep listening to the same few musical pieces all the time, just interpreted by different people. And the CM music business keeps on teaching, playing and selling us the same music over and over again. The interpretative differences are too small to notice, compared to the differences between various musical pieces. You have to listen to many recordings to know any subtle difference. Yet, we keep on saying that one recording totally sucks and the other reveals the magical truth. Isn't it strange that musical students across the globe are learning to reproduce music that already exists long before they were born and has been played and recorded by many others. What fun is it to only reproduce something that already has been done endless times before, only to be evaluated by people who don't have such skills themselves, but only to kill your efforts or, even worse, to kill the evaluation of others, because they obviously didn't understand anything of it.
> 
> Quite sad actually, isn't it a pretty crowded square inch where we spend our time? Maybe it is time to open a window, to learn a new piece of music every day, a new genre, a new artform, a new skill, a new person.


I read in Michael Walsh's _Who's Afraid of Classical Music_ that music criticism in classical music is actually _performance_ criticism; that the music is taken as something sacred and the musicians are evaluated according to how precise they are in the interpretation.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Coach G said:


> I read in Michael Walsh's _Who's Afraid of Classical Music_ that music criticism in classical music is actually _performance_ criticism; that the music is taken as something sacred and the musicians are evaluated according to *how precise they are in the interpretation*.


I don't have an objective way the piece should go in my head. It is up to the performer to convince me of his or her interpretation.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I noted one comment in particular in the YouTube comments.
> 
> "*I've heard many recordings of this Symphony (they all kind of sound the same...and not very creative in my opinion...). This guy really infuses his own genius into this piece which gives it a new vitality and 'freshness' that I've been looking for. It really feels like the piece is living as it should be! Bravo!*"





DavidA said:


> I must confess in this performance the first movement drags. It should surely be more dynamic than this. But tastes vary I suppose.


I listened again to my DG CD copy last night. It really is a terrific performance. It shows all the special passion and mastery Furtwangler brought to the score but with the VPO caught in excellent sound.

I must say, comparing the YouTube review to yours, merely commenting that the tempo drags comes across as....superficial analysis. In truth, the initial tempo is slow but it builds gradually through the movement. Furtwangler did the same with the 5th symphony to great effect. The opening motif is presented as a grand statement, and then after this the drama builds. Most conductors try to wow you in the opening seconds, but for Furt it is more of an introduction to the drama.


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I listened again to my DG CD copy last night. It really is a terrific performance. It shows all the special passion Furtwangler brought to the score but with the VPO caught in excellent sound.
> 
> I must say, comparing the YouTube review to yours, merely commenting that the tempo drags comes across as....superficial analysis. In truth, the initial tempo is slow but it builds gradually through the movement. Furtwangler did the same with the 5th symphony to great effect. The opening motif is presented as a grand statement, and then after this the drama builds. Most conductors try to wow you in the opening seconds, but for Furt it is more of an introduction to the drama.


Got a picture of the disc, or link, any info?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I listened again to my DG CD copy last night. It really is a terrific performance. It shows all the special passion Furtwangler brought to the score but with the VPO caught in excellent sound.
> 
> I must say, comparing the YouTube review to yours, merely commenting that the tempo drags comes across as....superficial analysis. In truth, the initial tempo is slow but it builds gradually through the movement. Furtwangler did the same with the 5th symphony to great effect. The opening motif is presented as a grand statement, and then after this the drama builds. Most conductors try to wow you in the opening seconds, but for Furt it is more of an introduction to the drama.


My analysis is no more superficial than yours is. I said the tempo drugs and it does. It is well below Beethoven's marking. The first moment is not an introduction to the drama it is part of the drama itself. You are totally misconceived in your analysis of the work. Calling someone 'superficial' because you disagree with him it's just not the answer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> My analysis is no more superficial than yours is. I said the tempo drugs and it does. It is well below Beethoven's marking. The first moment is not an introduction to the drama it is part of the drama itself. You are totally misconceived in your analysis of the work. Calling someone 'superficial' because you disagree with him it's just not the answer.


Merely stating the tempo is too slow is superficial analysis. You provide no further rational for why it does or does not work or regarding what Furtwangler does beyond just the tempo. That is superficiality. It is particularly superficial considering Furtwangler varies the tempo throughout.

It's similar to calling Klemperer's tempo in the Eroica a "non-starter." You might as well be carrying a sign stating "No thinking allowed."

I have no issue with your conclusion. But the analysis is superficial.

Also you did not even understand my statement. I did not call the first movement an introduction. I specifically said the opening statement of the motif. It gets faster after that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

millionrainbows said:


> Got a picture of the disc, or link, any info?


Goodness, only one copy left on Amazon. Hate to be a broken record, but I wish I knew why it was not included in the grand DG Furt set. It is the only DG recording not included.

https://www.amazon.com/Under-Wilhelm-Furtw%C3%A4ngler-Ludwig-Beethoven/dp/B000027BT3/ref=sr_1_108?dchild=1&keywords=beethoven+9+furtwangler&qid=1594394163&s=music&sr=1-108


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

Someone on that Amazon page mentions that there is a recording of the previous night available on ICA. This is true, but the recording quality is much worse. I prefer the DG for that alone, and it is even more committed as a performance IMO.


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread. Isn't it amazing how a seemingly innocuous question can generate such acrimony?
> 
> I have nothing to contribute to this thread in any substantive way as Furtwängler is not in my pantheon of favourite, (N.B. not greatest) conductors. However I have a question for all those who are reading this, or for that matter any, thread.
> 
> If one feels that they have found a conductor who reaches the parts other conductors don't, and has played one of your favourite pieces, e.g. the Beethoven 3rd, in a manner that totally satisfies all your emotional and intellectual needs, why would you bother to listen to any other conductor doing the same piece if it's not going to fulfil any of your expectations?
> 
> I suppose the reason that I listen to different versions of the same thing is because I've yet to hear that transcendent version that makes the rest redundant.
> 
> Can any of you say the same thing or do you Furtwängler devotees feel that he does the job absolutely perfectly and others need not apply?


Even if I find one performance entirely satisfying (which doesn't happen often, but may), I remain aware that there can be aspects of a work I haven't been made aware of, and which some other performer may reveal. Since written notation is by its very nature a partial and insufficient representation of music, I would be mistaken in thinking that any performance is definitive or representative of some Platonic essence of a piece. There is no Platonic essence of any piece, and there are always differing approaches to it worth considering.

I may think Furtwangler is the greatest conductor on record (which I probably do) and I may find his Beethoven's 9th revelatory (which I definitely do), but I must also hear the work played at Beethoven's metronome markings by a smaller ensemble of early-19th-century instruments. Neither of these approaches can represent the totality of what the work contains and can say to me.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Merely stating the tempo is too slow is superficial analysis. You provide no further rational for why it does or does not work or regarding what Furtwangler does beyond just the tempo. That is superficiality. It is particularly superficial considering Furtwangler varies the tempo throughout.
> 
> It's similar to calling Klemperer's tempo in the Eroica a "non-starter." You might as well be carrying a sign stating "No thinking allowed."
> 
> I have no issue with your conclusion. But the analysis is superficial.
> 
> Also you did not even understand my statement. I did not call the first movement an introduction. I specifically said the opening statement of the motif. It gets faster after that.


You always amuse me the way you assume your opinion is worth more than anyone else's. You have no justification for what you say. I said it drags which it does and imo does not build up as you say. You talk about what 'Furtwangler does beyond the tempo' - what on earth does that mean? I could say the same of a lot of other interpreters. These phrases of yours might sound good to you but they are actually meaningless. They are themselves 'superficial'! You just can't see it yourself.

As for Klemperer I have said if you take the trouble to readme, the in no way is his tempo for the first movement 'allegro con brio'. It is just to slow. Your insults as too my thinking are out of place btw. The moderator has already told us to stop making these personal remarks but I see you take no notice.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You always amuse me the way you assume your opinion is worth more than anyone else's. You have no justification for what you say. I said it drags which it does and imo does not build up as you say. You talk about what 'Furtwangler does beyond the tempo' - what on earth does that mean? I could say the same of a lot of other interpreters. These phrases of yours might sound good to you but they are actually meaningless. They are themselves 'superficial'! You just can't see it yourself.
> 
> As for Klemperer I have said if you take the trouble to readme, the in no way is his tempo for the first movement 'allegro con brio'. It is just to slow. Your insults as too my thinking are out of place btw. *The moderator has already told us to stop making these personal remarks but I see you take no notice.*


I see you don't either.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You always amuse me the way you assume your opinion is worth more than anyone else's. You have no justification for what you say. I said it drags which it does and imo does not build up as you say. You talk about what 'Furtwangler does beyond the tempo' - what on earth does that mean? I could say the same of a lot of other interpreters. These phrases of yours might sound good to you but they are actually meaningless. They are themselves 'superficial'! You just can't see it yourself.
> 
> As for Klemperer I have said if you take the trouble to readme, the in no way is his tempo for the first movement 'allegro con brio'. It is just to slow. Your insults as too my thinking are out of place btw. The moderator has already told us to stop making these personal remarks but I see you take no notice.


I am not making a personal attack or insult upon you. I am saying that merely stating that a tempo is slow is superficial analysis. There is no assumption of superiority as you infer. It is my honest reaction to your stated opinion on the music, and I stand by it.

Tempo is merely one aspect of an interpretation. Even that can change during the course of a movement, as it does here. Anyone, including myself, can see that Furtwangler starts the first movement at a slow basic tempo. Merely commenting on that and nothing else is superficial analysis. It's merely commenting on what is plainly obvious on the surface. And there is nothing personal about saying that. I would say the same thing if Albert Einstein were making the statement.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am not making a personal attack or insult upon you. I am saying that merely stating that a tempo is slow is superficial analysis. There is no assumption of superiority as you infer. It is my honest reaction to your stated opinion on the music, and I stand by it.
> 
> Tempo is merely one aspect of an interpretation. Even that can change during the course of a movement, as it does here. Anyone, including myself, can see that Furtwangler starts the first movement at a slow basic tempo. Merely commenting on that and nothing else is superficial analysis. It's merely commenting on what is plainly obvious on the surface. And there is nothing personal about saying that. I would say the same thing if Albert Einstein were making the statement.


But you gave no real justification for your reasoning either. It is my honest reaction that the tempo was too slow backed up by what Beethohoven himself wrote. Your analysis is just as superficial as mine - the problem is you don't realise it. You don't need to be Einstein to see you just multiply words and say nothing. I say it is too slow and drags and you say it doesn't. OK. We differ. If I am being superficial then so are you! Why can't you just see it?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> But you gave no real justification for your reasoning either. It is my honest reaction that the tempo was too slow backed up by what Beethohoven himself wrote. Your analysis is just as superficial as mine - the problem is you don't realise it. You don't need to be Einstein to see you just multiply words and say nothing. I say it is too slow and drags and you say it doesn't. OK. We differ. If I am being superficial then so are you! Why can't you just see it?


This is a great performance in my opinion. But I just want to mention that the veracity of this 1953 VPO recording is controversial.

And do we really know Beethoven's exact tempo?

One standard interpretation of the first movement is some kind of musical equivalence of the genesis or the Hegelian dialectics of the light and dark (due to ambiguous tonality). The tempo in this Furtwangler 1953 VPO recording is quite fitting to this narrative.

And I noticed there are plenty of rubati being used in the first movement, most noticeably the crescendo section with the dialogue between the 1st violin and the flute of the first theme near the end of the movement (around 14:22, quite an intense experience).

To me, it seems that Furtwangler like to set the stage with a broad tempo so that he has more leeways later for his use of rubati (otherwise they will sound too fast). Furthermore, the starting "slow" is always helpful for the listener to understand and memorize the core music material that is to be developed in the whole movement. In this case, it's this first theme which is built on the descending fourth and symbolizes the sparks in the primordial darkness represented by the 2nd violin (in my mental image).

I agree with BH's assessment that this heightens the drama (suspense).


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think Furtwangler's propensity to start slow (often uncomfortably, grindingly slow) and gradually get faster is very convincing in a way only he could pull off. Listen to how he does the finales of Brahms 4 and Beethoven 7 (listen _all the way through_, don't just write it off after the first 20 seconds because "it's too slow"). Sticking to a rigid, inflexible pulse leads to tedium IMO, and Furtwangler's gentle stretching of the tempi makes into something like a theatrical drama rather than a dry presentation of the score.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ nicely put. Judicious use of rubati also create this wave-like impression to the listener which enhances the listener's ability to understand the music's overarching structure. Think of the "big wave" as a large meta-phrase.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a great performance in my opinion. But I just want to mention that the veracity of this 1953 VPO recording is controversial.
> 
> And do we really know Beethoven's exact tempo?
> 
> One standard interpretation of the first movement is some kind of musical equivalence of the genesis or the Hegelian dialectics of the light and dark (due to ambiguous tonality). The tempo in this Furtwangler 1953 VPO recording is quite fitting to this narrative.
> 
> And I noticed there are plenty of rubati being used in the first movement, most noticeably the crescendo section with the dialogue between the 1st violin and the flute of the first theme near the end of the movement (around 14:22, quite an intense experience).
> 
> To me, it seems that Furtwangler like to set the stage with a broad tempo so that he has more leeways later for his use of rubati (otherwise they will sound too fast). Furthermore, the starting "slow" is always helpful for the listener to understand and memorize the core music material that is to be developed in the whole movement. In this case, it's this first theme which is built on the descending fourth and symbolizes the sparks in the primordial darkness represented by the 2nd violin (in my mental image).
> 
> I agree with BH's assessment that this heightens the drama (suspense).


Beethoven's score marking is crotchet 88 Which may be a bit on the faSt side but is way more than Furtwangler sets. I cannot see for the life of me while setting a slow tempo helps listeners to memorise the core music material if the music material is supposed to be played faster. I would say that is a pure red herring. I believe this music should be driving forward. To me the music always conjures up the image of destiny driving forward not primordial darkness. There is nothing in the score to suggest that. No tempo indication that it should be speeded up


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think Furtwangler's propensity to start slow (often uncomfortably, grindingly slow) and gradually get faster is very convincing in a way only he could pull off. Listen to how he does the finales of Brahms 4 and Beethoven 7 (listen _all the way through_, don't just write it off after the first 20 seconds because "it's too slow"). Sticking to a rigid, inflexible pulse leads to tedium IMO, and Furtwangler's gentle stretching of the tempi makes into something like a theatrical drama rather than a dry presentation of the score.


Sorry but I think if you listen to certain other performances of Beethoven's seventh at the correct tempo you will find them anything but tedious


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Beethoven's score marking is crotchet 88 Which may be a bit on the faSt side but is way more than Furtwangler sets. I cannot see for the life of me while setting a slow tempo helps listeners to memorise the core music material if the music material is supposed to be played faster. I would say that is a pure red herring. I believe this music should be driving forward. To me the music always conjures up the image of destiny driving forward not primordial darkness. There is nothing in the score to suggest that. No tempo indication that it should be speeded up


What you said has no basis either. Tempo marking is certainly not sacred but only suggestive (given that it's historically authentic). Even most modern Beethoven performance don't stick to his marking anyway if being dogmatic is your concern. Given Beethoven's deafness problem, it is also arguable to what extent is his tempo marking correspond to a literal interpretation (the sense of time is likely to be different in the inner ear).

Aimard once told this story when he was working with Ligetti for the premiere of his Etudes, he convinced Ligetti to drastically change the tempo of one of them during the practice session. There are no reason to assume that a composer wouldn't change his mind for a convincing performance, we don't have that information.

Furthermore, it is simply a matter of aesthetics that whether a performer must be a slave to a composer's will or not (and to less degree to the score in Ravel's view). There are a plethora of great master musicians who do not believe this. If one has listened to Rachmaninoff playing Chopin's piano sonata No.2, one certainly would conclude that it's a immensely inspired performance even though many liberties were taken.

Furtwangler believed that music is made in the moment (phenomenological interpretation), which means that it has to be "true" to that exact moment, not before or after. This is a much more sophisticated understanding of music than beating time as precise as possible as the score predestined.

Artistic effects are based on contrasts. Ultra rhythmic precision do not create contrast (admittedly it does create certain desirable effects). Tasteful application of rubati do not change the overall shape of the music but makes it more human (relating to breathing pattern and subtle shifts of heartbeats) and requires far superior skills to accomplish than beating time precisely, especially for an orchestra. Rubato can also be precise in a way (in terms of gradient) that is far beyond the limit of square-shaped rhythmic precision. It also enhances the regular rhythms through contrast.

Therefore, from the perspective of aesthetics, romantic performance practices, intellectual reasoning (phenomenology and music psychology), expressive and interpretative range, display of orchestral virtuosity, judiciously applied rubati are not only valid, but are also more liberating and sophisticated than the dogma of metrononical time beating.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What you said has no basis either. Tempo marking is certainly not sacred but only suggestive (given that it's historically authentic). Even most Beethoven performance don't stick to his marking anyway if being dogmatic is your concern. Given Beethoven's deafness problem, it is also arguable to what extent is his tempo marking correspond to a literal interpretation (the sense of time is likely to be different in the inner ear).
> 
> Aimard once told this story when he was working with Ligetti for the premiere of his Etudes, and convinced Ligetti to drastically change the tempo of one of them during the practice session. There are no reason to assume that a composer wouldn't change his mind for a convincing performance, we don't have that information.
> 
> Furthermore, it is simply a matter of aesthetics that whether a performer must be a slave to a composer's will (and to less degree the score in Ravel's view). There are a plethora of great master musicians who do not believe this. If one has listened to Rachmaninoff playing Chopin's piano sonata No.2, one certainly would conclude that it's a immensely inspired performance even though many liberties were taken.
> 
> Furtwangler believed that music is made in the moment (phenomenological interpretation), which means that it has to be "true" to that exact moment, not before or after. This is a much more sophisticated understanding of music than beating time as precise as possible as the score predestined.
> 
> Artistic effects are based on contrasts. Ultra rhythmic precision do not create contrast (admittedly it does create certain desirable effects). Tasteful application of rubati do not change the overall shape of the music but makes it more human (relating to breathing pattern and subtle shifts of heartbeats) and requires far superior skills to accomplish than beating time precisely, especially for an orchestra. Rubato can also be precise in a way (in terms of gradient) that is far beyond the limit of square-shaped rhythmic precision. It also enhances the regular rhythms through contrast.
> 
> Therefore, from the perspective of aesthetics, romantic performance practices, intellectual reasoning (phenomenology and music psychology), expressive and interpretative range, display of orchestral virtuosity, judiciously applied rubati are not only valid, but are *also more liberating and sophisticated than the dogma of metrononical time beating*.


It is a constant source of fascination to me how you guys like to set up straw men by putting in phrases like this. I have never suggested a 'dogma of metronomical time beating' at all. What I said was that Furtwangler's tempo was too slow. Now the opposite of too slow is a faster tempo not a metronomical time beating. The problem is you are multiplying words just to try and justify your own preferences. I am just saying the tempo was too slow for my tastes. Your multiplication of words does not make your arguments any the more convincing. Neither does your setting up of strawmen


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> It is a constant source of fascination to me how you guys like to set up straw men by putting in phrases like this. I have never suggested a 'dogma of metronomical time beating' at all. What I said was that Furtwangler's tempo was too slow. Now the opposite of too slow is a faster tempo not a metronomical time beating. The problem is you are multiplying words just to try and justify your own preferences. I am just saying the tempo was too slow for my tastes. Your multiplication of words does not make your arguments any the more convincing. Neither does your setting up of strawmen


Perhaps in your eyes, building a case using multiple substantiated arguments is equivalent to "multiplying words". I am sympathetic to that.



> There is nothing in the score to suggest that. No tempo indication that it should be speeded up


"Dogma of metrononical time beating" is the warrant of your argument. Without it your argument would fall apart. The only strawman here is you imagining me setting up a strawman. It follows that, by logically necessity, that you are your own "constant source of fascination".


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Perhaps in your eyes, building a case using multiple substantiated arguments is equivalent to "multiplying words". I am sympathetic to that.
> 
> "Dogma of metrononical time beating" is the warrant of your argument. Without it your argument would fall apart. The only strawman here is you imagining me setting up a strawman. It follows that, by logically necessity, that you are your own "constant source of fascination".


You don't even recognise your own strawman do you? I never mentioned any metronomical time beating. Something you bring into the argument and accuse the other person of saying. Don't you realise there is a difference between adopting a brisk tempo and metronomic time beating? Sorry but it's impossible to argue with this lack of logic


----------



## Barbebleu

Surely time to wind this thread up. It seems to have been reduced to petty sniping and the OP is long gone as is the thrust of the discussion. It all seems very pointless now. Maybe it’s COVID that’s got us all demented or maybe it was ever thus!


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Beethohoven


----------



## millionrainbows

Wind the thread up?

But it gives control freaks the opportunity to step in and attempt to stop it. That's one of the best parts for me.

"I think Furtwangler's propensity to start slow (often uncomfortably, grindingly slow) and gradually get faster..."
Are you sure we're talking about conducting?

New thread idea: *Conducting As A Metaphor for the Sex Act*


----------



## aioriacont

Fartwanglor is an amazing conductor of gases


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Beethoven's score marking is crotchet 88 Which may be a bit on the faSt side but is way more than Furtwangler sets. I cannot see for the life of me while setting a slow tempo helps listeners to memorise the core music material if the music material is supposed to be played faster. I would say that is a pure red herring. I believe this music should be driving forward. To me the music always conjures up the image of destiny driving forward not primordial darkness. There is nothing in the score to suggest that. No tempo indication that it should be speeded up


I'm so glad you are here to provide a clear antithesis to what I have been arguing. I have been arguing that there is no such thing as an objective rendering in practice. The perfect performance exists only in the abstract - undefinable - and it is the interpreter's job to reach it through subjective means. The ultimate goal is connection, the aspect of the music that seeks out this universal end. It can never be reached in practice. It can never convince everyone, nor can it ever be seen the same way by everyone.

You are arguing the opposite, that there is ONE correct way to perform a piece in PRACTICE, and thus you are either right or wrong, correct or incorrect. This IMO is rubbish. No one knows the correct way to perform a piece of music. No one has a monopoly on truth. The road to musical truth is one which must be debated, and it has no ultimate answers.

Why is the topic of Furtwängler still going for pages upon pages? Because Furtwängler himself was endlessly searching, never satisfied with the answers. Why is the Toscanini thread not going anywhere? Because Toscanini truncated exploration with the simple notion that truth is objective and self-evident. That's why his recordings serve more as "educational" tools, whereas Furtwängler's serve for actual enjoyment. Furtwängler's path is the living path. Toscanini's path is, by its own inherent limitations, dead.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Furtwängler always challenges our preconceptions about how the music should go. Some see that as a good thing, while others are content to stay at face value. No problem with either way.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is the topic of Furtwängler still going for pages upon pages? Because Furtwängler himself was endlessly searching, never satisfied with the answers. Why is the Toscanini thread not going anywhere? Because Toscanini truncated exploration with the simple notion that truth is objective and self-evident. That's why his recordings serve more as "educational" tools, whereas Furtwängler's serve for actual enjoyment. Furtwängler's path is the living path. Toscanini's path is, by its own inherent limitations, dead.


I'd liked to add that even Toscanini changed the score and added extra horn and trumpet as well as melodic lines when performing Beethoven's 9th, according to Wagner's essay which both he and Furtwangler liked very much. He altered scores very often as shown by studies that looked at his annotated scores and his performances.

The "slave to composer" public image of Toscanini is a MYTH created by his biographer Tobia Nicotra who idolized him and Joseph Horowitz for the educational purpose of the public. Reducing Toscanini's vision to just "faithful adherence to score" is both untrue and unfair.

The critique that "X is bad because it deviates from the score" or "X is bad because it's TOO slow" is OK but not terribly interesting or sophisticated at best. One can say the same about Guilini's spiritual performance of the 9th and Cluytens' 9th, both of which adopted the same tempo as Furtwangler's 53 performance, without actually listening to their interpretations.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm so glad you are here to provide a clear antithesis to what I have been arguing. I have been arguing that there is no such thing as an objective rendering in practice. The perfect performance exists only in the abstract - undefinable - and it is the interpreter's job to reach it through subjective means. The ultimate goal is connection, the aspect of the music that seeks out this universal end. It can never be reached in practice. It can never convince everyone, nor can it ever be seen the same way by everyone.
> 
> You are arguing the opposite, that there is ONE correct way to perform a piece in PRACTICE, and thus you are either right or wrong, correct or incorrect. This IMO is rubbish. No one knows the correct way to perform a piece of music. No one has a monopoly on truth. The road to musical truth is one which must be debated, and it has no ultimate answers.
> 
> Why is the topic of Furtwängler still going for pages upon pages? Because Furtwängler himself was endlessly searching, never satisfied with the answers. Why is the Toscanini thread not going anywhere? Because Toscanini truncated exploration with the simple notion that truth is objective and self-evident. That's why his recordings serve more as "educational" tools, whereas Furtwängler's serve for actual enjoyment. Furtwängler's path is the living path. Toscanini's path is, by its own inherent limitations, dead.


Sorry but you are talking complete and utter nonsense. I am not arguing there is one correct way to perform a piece. Why do I have many different interpretations of the Beethoven symphonies if I believe that? The problem is with you you just do not read what people say and you have your own preconceived ideas what we believe. You absolutely make me laugh because you yourself believe that you have a monopoly on the truth - what BH believes! It is quite funny that you keep going over and over and over the same plant and absolutely contradicting yourself again and again and again. Why did Toscanini sell far more recordings that Furtwangler ever did? Perhaps it's because people like his conducting. Why is this thread going on and on and on? Because you keep making it go on and on and on. That is the only reason. You seem to have this fixation about this conductor and isn't it about time you gave it a rest Instead of these endless attempts to fruitlessly justify an argument that can never be proved?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You absolutely make me laugh because you yourself believe that you have a monopoly on the truth - what BH believes!


Merely stating my opinion is not saying I have a monopoly on the truth. Where's your proof that I believe this? I state my truth and you state yours. How are we any different? And more importantly, commenting on a poster's state of mind is a personal attack.



DavidA said:


> Why did Toscanini sell far more recordings that Furtwangler ever did?


Where is your proof of this? Last I checked, Furtwängler has more recordings available and more Amazon reviews than Toscanini. If you have data showing Toscanini sold more, I'm all ears.



DavidA said:


> Why is this thread going on and on and on? Because you keep making it go on and on and on.


I do not have that power. Plenty of others have kept this thread going. Merl faulted me at one point for "triple posting." Never mind that I was responding to others who were responding to me, and also another poster that same day made a quadruple post. Nope, it's just me. Why do you keep posting here?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> You are talking complete and utter nonsense





DavidA said:


> You absolutely make me laugh





DavidA said:


> It is quite funny that you keep going over and over





DavidA said:


> Endless attempts to fruitlessly justify


You have made it abundantly clear how to make "great" arguments and be respectful to others.



DavidA said:


> Why did Toscanini sell far more recordings that Furtwangler ever did?


That's true, but your evaluation is not correct. Toscanini benefited from his US publicity/marketing and vast number of recordings with RCA. Furtwangler never cared for studio recordings and most of the recordings are rediscovered much later. Eugene Ormandy was just as successful as Toscanini in terms of record sales and it's fair to say almost no one fascinates with him now.

To see the trend among CM fans, I will give you two facts:

1. New record labels were created for publishing different discovering and remastering of Furtwangler's recordings, such as Tahra in 1993 that is founded by Hermann Scherchen's daughter and Spectrum Sound in 2009.

2. There are far more new box sets being pumped out for Furtwanlger (2 last year) than Toscanini in the last two decades. Furtwangler still has a massive following in Asia whereas Toscanini has very little (Japanese labels have amazing stuff in terms of historical recordings).


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Merely stating my opinion is not saying I have a monopoly on the truth. Where's your proof that I believe this? I state my truth and you state yours. How are we any different? And more importantly, commenting on a poster's state of mind is a personal attack.
> 
> Where is your proof of this? Last I checked, Furtwängler has more recordings available and more Amazon reviews than Toscanini. If you have data showing Toscanini sold more, I'm all ears.
> 
> I do not have that power. Plenty of others have kept this thread going. Merl faulted me at one point for "triple posting." Never mind that I was responding to others who were responding to me, and also another poster that same day made a quadruple post. Nope, it's just me. Why do you keep posting here?


You make a personal attack on me and then you complain that I make a personal attack on you. You really need to get your own house in order my friend.

As it's a well-known fact that Toscanini sold more Recordings than anyone else Of his generation, the burden of proof is on you. In any case I'm not making a case for Toscanini as you appear to be dissing him. A major part of the problem is that the vast bulk of Toscanini's commercial recordings were made at the extreme end of his long career, when the creative spark had dimmed and his graceful lyricism had all but calcified into grim determination. A far better perspective emerges from his concerts and his earlier records.

I keep posting it to counteract your ridiculous accusations. And perhaps I like being a member of the theatre of the absurd


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You have made it abundantly clear how to make "great" arguments and be respectful to others.
> 
> That's true, but your evaluation is not correct. Toscanini benefited from his US publicity/marketing and vast number of recordings with RCA. Furtwangler never cared for studio recordings and most of the recordings are rediscovered much later. Eugene Ormandy was just as successful as Toscanini in terms of record sales and it's fair to say almost no one fascinates with him now.
> 
> To see the trend among CM fans, I will give you two facts:
> 
> 1. New record labels were created for publishing different discovering and remastering of Furtwangler's recordings, such as Tahra in 1993 that is founded by Hermann Scherchen's daughter and Spectrum Sound in 2009.
> 
> 2. There are far more new box sets being pumped out for Furtwanlger (2 last year) than Toscanini in the last two decades. Furtwangler still has a massive following in Asia whereas Toscanini has very little (Japanese labels have amazing stuff in terms of historical recordings).


My assessment is right. You are saying that what I said is true and that what BH says is wrong. Thanks! I am not making a case for Toscanini as I've said above as his recordings were made towards the end of his career in relatively poor sound. Toscanini set a standard and he had many followers and his approach can be heard by many people who followed him in much better sound. Of course at the time it was revelatory. Furtwangler was a one-off and as we have said has a 'cult' following (for those who understand the modern use of the word)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> My assessment is right. You are saying that what I said is true and that what BH says is wrong. Thanks! I am not making a case for Toscanini as I've said above as his recordings were made towards the end of his career in relatively poor sound. Toscanini set a standard and he had many followers and his approach can be heard by many people who followed him in much better sound. Of course at the time it was revelatory. Furtwangler was a one-off and as we have said has a 'cult' following (for those who understand the modern use of the word)


I don't agree with your assessment but what you said here is fair.

And I don't buy the "ad populum" logic of anyone. We all know how capitalism works, I hope. 'Cult following' is what many people don't understand about Furtwangler's art, which fascinated and inspired many great conductors of the post WWII generation (Barenboim, Mehta, Celibidache, Thielemann, Chailly, etc) and classical music fans.

Just putting things into perspective, the Furtwangler vs Toscanini thing is in someway a continuation of Hans von Bulow vs Weingartner debate, two "opposing" school of conducting style. But "textual fidelity" is a misunderstanding of the "Apollonian" approach and not great for the appreciation of art.

If one want to understand, one needs to be open and willing to listen.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You make a personal attack on me and then you complain that I make a personal attack on you. You really need to get your own house in order my friend.


You made a critique of a recording, and I referred to the critique as "superficial." That was not a personal attack. I would have the same opinion regardless if it was your critique or you were quoting someone else.

Your assertion that I believe my opinion is fact and superior to everyone else is not only baseless but it is definitely a personal attack as it is a negative comment on my state of mind not to mention an attack on my character.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I don't agree with your assessment but what you said here is fair.
> 
> And I don't buy the "ad populum" logic of anyone. We all know how capitalism works, I hope. 'Cult following' is what many people don't understand about Furtwangler's art, which fascinated and inspired many great conductors of the post WWII generation (Barenboim, Mehta, Celibidache, Thielemann, Chailly, etc) and classical music fans.
> 
> Just putting things into perspective, the Furtwangler vs Toscanini thing is in someway a continuation of Hans von Bulow vs Weingartner debate, two "opposing" school of conducting style. But "textual fidelity" is a misunderstanding of the "Apollonian" approach and not great for the appreciation of art.
> 
> *If one want to understand, one needs to be open and willing to listen*.


And enter the realm of the 'initiated'. Thanks for confirming my point!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You made a critique of a recording, and I referred to the critique as "superficial." That was not a personal attack. I would have the same opinion regardless if it was your critique or you were quoting someone else.
> 
> Your assertion that I believe my opinion is fact and superior to everyone else is not only baseless but it is definitely a personal attack as it is a negative comment on my state of mind not to mention an attack on my character.


The fact that all your posts appear to completely have the superior attitude seems to have escaped you. The fact that other people notice it also seems to have escaped you. Anyway I'm done with this. I can't stand any more of this talking in circles.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> And enter the realm of the 'initiated'. Thanks for confirming my point!


That's precisely why I always try to hear from those who do understand it better to improve my understanding. Not to resort to authority but see it's arguments and perspectives other than wallowing in my own lack of perspective.

Let me share this quote from Simon Rattle on Furtwängler:

"What one has to realize about Furtwängler's interpretations is that they were based on an
extraordinary bedrock of intellect, and there was nothing that man didn't know about the structure of the music, about the intellectual hard core. He wasn't an instinctive musician like Toscanini or Stokowski, for instance. He understood all the foundations of harmony, counterpoint, and structure, and so his departures were all structural and all organic to the music. As a young conductor, you can listen, and it's like being set free. But, of course, to imitate it is very dangerous because one has to start once again from theone has to go from the bottom up."

And a quote from Dutoit on Furtwängler:

"Although I think it's very difficult to frankly and honestly say what we could take and
imitate, try to do again, from a Furtwängler interpretation. I don't believe we can. This is the problem with records; it's the danger that I feel. Recording stops the development. A recording belongs to a specific time and specific moment in an artist's life. And for instance, there are many things in a Furtwängler performance which we couldn't do nowsome very slow tempi. We cannot imitate that because we don't have the same blood pressure; we don't have the same style of life; we don't haveit's a different world, you know, so if you don't live intensely in that world, then you cannot take anything from it and try to imitate it."

And a quote from Boulez on Furtwängler:

"And I think in the old recordings there may be mistakes, but there is always the long line. Nowadays, especially in intricate works, sometimes you feel the tempo is unsteady. You don't hear the cut because the technicians are good enough, but you feel suddenly a drop of tempo which is completely arbitrary and irrational, which has no reason to exist at this point. And you know very well at this point there was suddenly another take inserted which is not exactly in the same tempo as before. You know, there is excitement in the hall because you have an audience, and the participation of the audience makes that performance more exciting, more lively. But for a recording, you have to keep in mind this excitement, and at the same time, you want perfection."

Are these people "initiated"? Yes. Do I understand better seeing from their perspective? Yes. And from avid fans as well. There are plenty to read about these stuff if you wonder why Furtwangler fascinates.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The fact that all your posts appear to completely have the superior attitude seems to have escaped you. The fact that other people notice it also seems to have escaped you. Anyway I'm done with this. I can't stand any more of this talking in circles.


That's your opinion. It's wrong. And it's personal and has nothing to with discussion of music. So stop it.


----------



## ribonucleic

Becca said:


> I have been wanting to start this thread for some time now but have been concerned that it would start a firestorm * however interest has gotten the better of me so...


[shakes head sadly]


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from personal comments. DavidA and Brahmsianhorn, please use PMs and not forum posts to continue your spat or simply move on.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is the topic of Furtwängler still going for pages upon pages? Because Furtwängler himself was endlessly searching, never satisfied with the answers. Why is the Toscanini thread not going anywhere? Because Toscanini truncated exploration with the simple notion that truth is objective and self-evident. That's why his recordings serve more as "educational" tools, whereas Furtwängler's serve for actual enjoyment. Furtwängler's path is the living path. Toscanini's path is, by its own inherent limitations, dead.


This is clearly not why the thread has gone on for pages and pages. However, standing back a few paces, this slab of text is PRECISELY why.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's precisely why I always try to hear from those who do understand it better to improve my understanding. Not to resort to authority but see it's arguments and perspectives other than wallowing in my own lack of perspective.
> 
> Let me share this quote from Simon Rattle on Furtwängler:
> 
> "What one has to realize about Furtwängler's interpretations is that they were based on an
> extraordinary bedrock of intellect, and there was nothing that man didn't know about the structure of the music, about the intellectual hard core. He wasn't an instinctive musician like Toscanini or Stokowski, for instance. He understood all the foundations of harmony, counterpoint, and structure, and so his departures were all structural and all organic to the music. As a young conductor, you can listen, and it's like being set free. But, of course, to imitate it is very dangerous because one has to start once again from theone has to go from the bottom up."
> 
> And a quote from Dutoit on Furtwängler:
> 
> "Although I think it's very difficult to frankly and honestly say what we could take and
> imitate, try to do again, from a Furtwängler interpretation. I don't believe we can. This is the problem with records; it's the danger that I feel. Recording stops the development. A recording belongs to a specific time and specific moment in an artist's life. And for instance, there are many things in a Furtwängler performance which we couldn't do nowsome very slow tempi. We cannot imitate that because we don't have the same blood pressure; we don't have the same style of life; we don't haveit's a different world, you know, so if you don't live intensely in that world, then you cannot take anything from it and try to imitate it."
> 
> And a quote from Boulez on Furtwängler:
> 
> "And I think in the old recordings there may be mistakes, but there is always the long line. Nowadays, especially in intricate works, sometimes you feel the tempo is unsteady. You don't hear the cut because the technicians are good enough, but you feel suddenly a drop of tempo which is completely arbitrary and irrational, which has no reason to exist at this point. And you know very well at this point there was suddenly another take inserted which is not exactly in the same tempo as before. You know, there is excitement in the hall because you have an audience, and the participation of the audience makes that performance more exciting, more lively. But for a recording, you have to keep in mind this excitement, and at the same time, you want perfection."
> 
> Are these people "initiated"? Yes. Do I understand better seeing from their perspective? Yes. And from avid fans as well. There are plenty to read about these stuff if you wonder why Furtwangler fascinates.


So you quote three? There is a *whole generation *of conductors who were influenced by Toscanini. Toscanini was the supreme legend in classical music. Nearly every musician who ever played with him considered the experience to have been the pinnacle of his career. The greatest composers of the time implored him to conduct premieres of their works. Seasoned critics ran out of superlatives describing the power of his performances. Even his rivals acknowledged that he had no peer. He was called, quite simply, the Maestro, as if there was no other. His influence still shapes our modern perception of classical music whether you like it or not. He remade the art of conducting. Toscanini had a vastly more influential part to play in modern conducting even among the peopke you mention than Furtwamngler, whether they realise it or not. That is history. By just making these quotes you are just talking about his peripheral influence. I am talking about Toscanini's fundamental influence. It is quite laughable to talk about Boulez as he was the antithesis of Furtwangler as a conductor. Actually what these three guys are saying is just what I said that Furtwangler was a one off and cannot and should not be imitated. Toscanini's influence on his generation of conductors was vastly more Than Furtwangler's as we hear today in the tremendous improvement of orchestral playing. 
Don't get me wrong. Please enjoy Furtwangler's recordings. But it just irritate some of us when certain people imply they are Somehow better than the rest of us because they are signed up members of his fan club.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Don't get me wrong. Please enjoy Furtwangler's recordings. But it just irritate some of us when certain people imply they are Somehow better than the rest of us because they are signed up members of his fan club.


Last time I checked, this is a thread about explaining Furtwangler's art and legacy, not about praising Toscanini. I simply don't see the necessity of the outburst. I have also stated clearly that Toscanini's art should not be reduced to "a slave to the score", which is a myth.

Quoting Boulez is meant for showing balanced opinions from all sides. But I understand why you find such an idea "laughable" and hard to comprehend.

The fact that Furtwangler is inimitable, as you rightly stated, is the highest form of praise for an artist.

I have yet seen any Furtwangler "fan" on this forum getting triggered by other fans. Maybe there is something inherently "irritating" about these Furtwangler's fandom.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Last time I checked, this is a thread about explaining Furtwangler's art and legacy, not about praising Toscanini. I simply don't see the necessity of the outburst. I have also stated clearly that Toscanini's art should not be reduced to "a slave to the score", which is a myth.
> 
> Quoting Boulez is meant for showing balanced opinions from all sides. But I understand why you find such an idea "laughable" and hard to comprehend.
> 
> The fact that Furtwangler is inimitable, as you rightly stated, is the highest form of praise for an artist.
> 
> I have yet seen any Furtwangler "fan" on this forum getting triggered by other fans. Maybe there is something inherently "irritating" about these Furtwangler's fandom.


Of course being a member of the Fanclub yourself you wouldn't see it. But if you read your post can't you say there is something superior in the way you're addressing me?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Furtwangler was a one-off and as we have said has a 'cult' following (for those who understand the modern use of the word)


Those who understand the modern use of the word understand that it has a derisive connotation and is uttered with an air of superiority and condescension - as witness your own posts.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Maybe there is something inherently "irritating" about these Furtwangler's fandom.


There's something inherently irritating about 'fandom', period.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Of course being a member of the Fanclub yourself you wouldn't see it. But if you read your post can't you say there is something superior in the way you're addressing me?


No one surpasses you at practicing what you preach against.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Of course being a member of the Fanclub yourself you wouldn't see it. But if you read your post can't you say there is something superior in the way you're addressing me?


Even if that's true, why is that such a big deal? Why is this related to being a fan of Furtwangler?

You have overtly demonstrated plenty of rudeness, disrespectful languages, and high horse attitudes yourself. I understand that in the heat of the debate, you cannot help. I certainly don't think that's a big deal being on the Internet.

After all, I am just some random internet dude who is as flawed as anyone else, and I am not here for self-introspection. If I have ever offended you, or hurt your feelings, I apologize again.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Even if that's true, why is that such a big deal? Why is this related to being a fan of Furtwangler?
> 
> You have overtly demonstrated plenty of rudeness, disrespectful languages, and high horse attitudes yourself. I understand that in the heat of the debate, you cannot help. I certainly don't think that's a big deal being on the Internet.
> 
> After all, I am just some random internet dude who is as flawed as anyone else, and I am not here for self-introspection. If I have ever offended you, or hurt your feelings, I apologize again.


Sorry the moderator has told us to stop this sort of name calling. Please take notice of it. You don't offend me but it just concerns me you don't seem to realise your own attitude. Anyway it would good to give dear old Furty a rest now.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Aren't we all CM fans?

Maybe that's a poor choice of word, how about "lovers", "enthusiasts"? Is that inherently irritating?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Sorry the moderator has told us to stop this sort of name calling. Obviously you don't take any notice of it. You obviously can't help yourself. You don't offend me but it just concerns me you don't seem to realise your own attitude. Anyway it would good to give dear old Furty a rest now.


Thank you for the concern and for pointing out my poor behaviors. I will take this lesson to the heart, and try to be a better person tomorrow.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> There is a *whole generation *of conductors who were influenced by Toscanini.


Is there? Who were they? How did he influence them?



> Toscanini was the supreme legend in classical music.


Who said that? What does it even mean?



> Nearly every musician who ever played with him considered the experience to have been the pinnacle of his career.


Really? Your source for that?



> The greatest composers of the time implored him to conduct premieres of their works.


Who were the greatest composers? Of WHAT time?



> Seasoned critics ran out of superlatives describing the power of his performances.


Which critics were "seasoned"? Which ones used up their vocabularies describing Toscanini?



> Even his rivals acknowledged that he had no peer.


Who were the rivals acknowledging this?



> His influence still shapes our modern perception of classical music whether you like it or not.


How? What perceptions do we owe to him in particular?



> He remade the art of conducting.


Goodness gracious. Did it need "remaking"?



> I am talking about Toscanini's fundamental influence.


Which was...?



> Toscanini's influence on his generation of conductors was vastly more Than Furtwangler's as we hear today in the tremendous improvement of orchestral playing.


So _this_ is his "fundamental influence" on the art of conducting??? I can hear Wagner, Mahler and Furtwangler (and other unfortunate conductors who never managed to feel Toscanini's "fundamental" influence) sighing with regret that he wasn't there to help them keep the cellos together.



> Don't get me wrong. Please enjoy Furtwangler's recordings. But it just irritate some of us when certain people imply they are Somehow better than the rest of us because they are signed up members of his fan club.


I don't think anyone gets you wrong. What you want is to perpetuate an argument while having little real argument to make.

My question would be: who cares whether Furtwangler or Toscanini is, or was, more influential? And how are we to measure influence anyway? Can we read the minds of musicians to discover what impressions other musicians make on them?

My impression - and it's only an impression, I'm not making an argument - is that the primary influence of Toscanini was to straightjacket the interpretive imaginations of musicians who came to espouse the fallacious notion that "fidelity to the score" was a primary artistic goal, an idea which had probably never before existed in the history of music.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for the concern and for pointing out my poor behaviors. I will take this lesson to the heart, and try to be a better person tomorrow.


Just to say one problem is when we put down things in print we don't sometimes realise the effect is going to have when it's read without our tone of voice coming over. So what sometimes can be a perfectly innocent expression comes over wrong. We can all be guilty of this so apologies from me if I've come over too strong sometimes. It's what's called robust argument. Anyway I think with exhausted this particular thread. And btw I believe you are a well intentioned person!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Listened to the first movement of Furtwängler’s 1942 Beethoven 9 yesterday.

Earth-shattering!

Tremendous!

Terrifying!

Awe-inspiring!

Metaphysical!

Apocalyptic!

I challenge anyone to listen to it and not have those words come to mind.

Before that I heard the famous 1938 Toscanini Beethoven 7, and though it was very good I didn’t hear anything in it that hasn’t been matched by modern recordings. But then that’s my least favorite Beethoven symphony so perhaps I’m being unfair.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Listened to the first movement of Furtwängler's 1942 Beethoven 9 yesterday.
> 
> Earth-shattering!
> 
> Tremendous!
> 
> Terrifying!
> 
> Awe-inspiring!
> 
> Metaphysical!
> 
> Apocalyptic!
> 
> I challenge anyone to listen to it and not have those words come to mind.
> 
> Before that I heard the famous 1938 Toscanini Beethoven 7, and though it was very good I didn't hear anything in it that hasn't been matched by modern recordings. But then that's my least favorite Beethoven symphony so perhaps I'm being unfair.


I have Furtwangler's Beethoven 9 (two of them in fact) and these words don't come to mind as they did when listening to the 1936 (not 1938) Toscanini Beethoven 7. Maybe you should listen to the right version. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Listened to the first movement of Furtwängler's 1942 Beethoven 9 yesterday.
> Earth-shattering!
> Tremendous!
> Terrifying!
> Awe-inspiring!
> Metaphysical!
> Apocalyptic!
> I challenge anyone to listen to it and not have those words come to mind.


Maybe these are just adjectives that best describe the (Beethoven) work itself.
I'm curious, are there any recordings by other conductors you wouldn't describe using these terms?


----------



## hammeredklavier

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Aren't we all CM fans?


Yes, we are. Conductors' Mad Fans


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe these are just adjectives that best describe the (Beethoven) work itself.
> I'm curious, are there any recordings by other conductors you wouldn't describe using these terms?


It's okay the guy was just trying to satirise a post I made. The problem is such things fall flat when you get the date wrong


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I have Furtwangler's Beethoven 9 (two of them in fact) and these words don't come to mind as they did when listening to the 1936 (not 1938) Toscanini Beethoven 7. Maybe you should listen to the right version. :lol:


You can't make things like this up. You negated another poster's reaction to Furtangler's 1942 9th by citing two _different_ recordings. You then make fun of said poster's remarks on Toscanini's Beethoven 7th by saying maybe he should listen to the right version, just because he was off on the date by two years.

He DID listen to the right Toscanini recording. You DID NOT listen to the right Furtwangler recordings. And yet you make fun of him? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You can't make things like this up. You negated another poster's reaction to Furtangler's 1942 9th by citing two _different_ recordings. You then make fun of said poster's remarks on Toscanini's Beethoven 7th by saying maybe he should listen to the right version, just because he was off on the date by two years.
> 
> He DID listen to the right Toscanini recording. You DID NOT listen to the right Furtwangler recordings. And yet you make fun of him? Talk about pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle was not even black in this case.
> 
> Mercy.


My friend the moderator has already told us not to make personal attacks. Please abide by his ruling


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe these are just adjectives that best describe the (Beethoven) work itself.
> I'm curious, are there any recordings by other conductors you wouldn't describe using these terms?


I ave listened to dozens upon dozens of Beethoven 9ths. None approach the intensity of Furtwangler's 1942 9th, not even Furtwangler's other versions.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> My friend the moderator has already told us not to make personal attacks. Please abide by his ruling


You negated his reaction to the 1942 Furtwangler 9th by citing different recordings, not the same one he listened to. That is a fact, not a personal attack.

You then made fun of him for getting the date wrong on Toscanini's 7th by saying maybe he should listen to the right recording. That is a fact, not a personal attack.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, we are. Conductors' Mad Fans


Now you can study specific conductors/interpretaters for Doctorate study in certain universities (such as King's College London).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I ave listened to dozens upon dozens of Beethoven 9ths. None approach the intensity of Furtwangler's 1942 9th, not even Furtwangler's other versions.


Yes, the infamous 1942 recording is so extreme it's hard to beat.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Before that I heard the famous 1938 Toscanini Beethoven 7, and though it was very good I didn't hear anything in it that hasn't been matched by modern recordings. But then that's my least favorite Beethoven symphony so perhaps I'm being unfair.


Have you heard Furtwangler's 1953 recording? Just masterful. In many if not most conductors' hands the symphony can sound like a simplistic jaunt to the finish. With Furtwangler it is a kaleidoscope of colors. Listen for example to the transition to the second section of the first movement at 4:00. Everything builds in such a masterly way. And the slow buildup in the final minute of the last movement is phenomenal.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you heard Furtwangler's 1953 recording? Just masterful. In many if not most conductor's hands the symphony can sound like a simplistic jaunt to the finish. With Furtwangler it is a kaleidoscope of colors. Listen for example to the transition to the second section of the first movement at 4:00. Everything builds in such a masterly way. And the slow buildup in the final minute of the last movement is phenomenal.


I think I can spot a few retired Nazi's in this crowd.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you heard Furtwangler's 1953 recording? Just masterful. In many if not most conductors' hands the symphony can sound like a simplistic jaunt to the finish. With Furtwangler it is a kaleidoscope of colors. Listen for example to the transition to the second section of the first movement at 4:00. Everything builds in such a masterly way. And the slow buildup in the final minute of the last movement is phenomenal.


I've heard his wartime 7th, which is the only recording of the symphony that has truly captivated me. I'll listen to that 1953 when I get the chance. And I agree that his treatment of the finale is stellar. Otherwise I always find it comes across as 8 minutes of purposeless, repetitive rhythmic monotony with absolutely no development. Furtwängler keeps his yaks under control until the end, which I like!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've heard his wartime 7th, which is the only recording of the symphony that has truly captivated me. I'll listen to that 1953 when I get the chance. And I agree that his treatment of the finale is stellar. Otherwise I always find it comes across as 8 minutes of purposeless, repetitive rhythmic monotony with absolutely no development. Furtwängler keeps his yaks under control until the end, which I like!


Seconded. I still prefer his wartime 7th to this one. Furtwangler suffered health issues near the end of his life, his rhythmic control is much looser when compared to the invigorated and virile wartime recordings. He was good at building up drama and a sense of direction in the last movement which often sounds like a repetitive tireless dance.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe these are just adjectives that best describe the (Beethoven) work itself.
> I'm curious, are there any recordings by other conductors you wouldn't describe using these terms?


That may indeed describe the work itself, but I can tell you that I didn't recognize those qualities in the music until I heard Furtwängler's interpretation. I think some performances lean less towards those descriptors than others. Like the famous Fricsay version that everyone recommends as the top 9th. The finale is great, but I can't for the life of me see what everyone hears in the first 3 movements. It seems straightforward and perfunctory. My other favorite 9th is the '80's Böhm. People criticize it for the tempi but I find it majestic, opulent, and gripping with perhaps the greatest vocal quartet ever in the finale.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Like the famous Fricsay version that everyone recommends as the top 9th. The finale is great, but I can't for the life of me see what everyone hears in the first 3 movements. It seems straightforward and perfunctory. My other favorite 9th is the '80's Böhm. People criticize it for the tempi but I find it majestic, opulent, and gripping with perhaps the greatest vocal quartet ever in the finale.


Fricsay's 9th has this wonderful BPO sound and the first 3 movements were handled with great ease and control (free of idiosyncrasies, which is what many are looking for). I find the last movement lacking a bit (great singers though), it's a bit plain and rushed for my taste. There is no enough contrast between the "terrifying fanfare" with the "joy theme". I haven't heard the very long Böhm 9th for a long time (it was not the most exciting 9th), from what you've said I need to revisit it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Idiosyncrasy seems to be one word that this thread has been downplaying.
Maybe music is not a popularity contest, but for the moment let's imagine you're looking at the population of conductors who have recorded a work - one which has been recorded by many.
Then take features like the basic tempo in a movement: there will be variations, but there will be similarities. If you looked at the distribution there will be some sort of bell curve. A performance which is well away from the centre of this distribution, an outlier, could be described as idiosyncratic. The same for other aspects of the performance. Similarly the central points might be referred to as the consensus view. There may be clusters (ie a number of combinations which tend to come together), so there is, if you like, more than one consensus, but that does not invalidate the argument.

Every one of these interpretations represents an individual ("subjective") view of the work, accomplished within the constraints of the performers' abilities. The central point of the distributions is something that could be measured (in terms of crude matters such as overall timing, degree of fluctuation in tempo, degree of fluctuation in X or Y) and having done so you would have a set of facts about the consensus view, an "objective" measurement of the core of what expert interpreters deliver about the piece.

Now turn to the listeners. Do you prefer a more or less idiosyncratic performance - one which is closer to the consensus or not? It's really up to you. I don't think either is better or worse. I imagine your preference just depends on something about your personality. Some people will react to hearing many interpretations of something by developing a liking for novelty (for outliers, for idiosyncrasy), and others will prefer not to be distracted by what they see as oddities.

Personally I'm generally more in the consensus camp, and usually find non-standard aspects of an interpretation distracting - a sort of "why are they doing that" feeling arises which irritates me. However, I don't think that the views of someone who likes a more idiosyncratic view are superficial, and I would just ask that they don't tell me that my view is superficial either. A lack of idiosyncrasy is not, inherently, superficial. If you like this sort of language, it is just as much the pursuit of a truth.

I think a more interesting point is whether, if I had grown up exposed to a different consensus I would have preferred performances with different characteristics to those I currently prefer, because of the different consensus. I suspect I probably would, but I can't really know. I think this because so much of music is about your expectations for how it will (or should?) go, and your expectations are set by experiences (and particularly those of other performances of the same piece).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I think Furtwängler’s interpretations sound perfectly natural, not idiosyncratic at all.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I think a more interesting point is whether, if I had grown up exposed to a different consensus I would have preferred performances with different characteristics to those I currently prefer, because of the different consensus. I suspect I probably would, but I can't really know. I think this because so much of music is about your expectations for how it will (or should?) go, and your expectations are set by experiences (and particularly those of other performances of the same piece).


With all due respect, measuring musical performance in terms of closeness to consensus seems superficial. The only reason it is mentioned because that is a characteristic some people care about. Yes. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> With all due respect, measuring musical performance in terms of closeness to consensus seems superficial. The only reason it is mentioned because that is a characteristic some people care about. Yes. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial.


I really will give up in this thread now. There is no point. It's a bit addictive, but in the end you realise that you are talking to brick walls.

I tried my best to avoid "loaded" words. Superficial is loaded, because it connotes lack of depth, and depth is seen as of value in this context. I consciously chose words like idiosyncratic and consensus, because there is no negative about those words. They are not value-laden.

The immediate responses to my post are a peculiar one suggesting that an interpretation which is idiosyncratic, in the sense of divergent from a consensus, could not sound natural to a particular listener. Well of course it could, and I never suggested it couldn't. I noted that my own preferences tended to run in a consensus direction, but indicated very much that others would be different in their own preferences.

Then we have this peculiar insistence on the word superficial. I never made any claim one way or the other that seeking to identify a consensus was or was not superficial in itself. (I guess it would depend on the depth or superficiality of the analysis!) As we can see in the post which I quote, there can be no doubt that the use of the word superficial in the first sentence is intended to be a negative, and phrased in a somewhat snide fashion. (Don't you just love the "with all due respect" touch - priceless.) Then to end with a statement that "it's OK to be superficial" is hilarious. The degree of condescension in this post beggars belief. I can only assume that the poster is not a native English speaker. If so, with all due respect, it's OK to have a superficial understanding of a language.

What we are clearly left with is a strand of opinion in listening to music which regards its preferences as superior to those of other listeners and (even worse) doesn't even seem to realise that this is what they are revealing in their posts. It's a funny old world.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> With all due respect, *measuring musical performance in terms of closeness to consensus *seems superficial. The only reason it is mentioned because that is a characteristic some people care about. Yes. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial.


I didn't read E Al's post as suggesting this at all.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial.


Sorry, I said I'd stop, but then the quote here came back to me.
I'll write it out myself:

".. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial".

It's hard to put that down with a straight face. So I thought I'd have a go. I couldn't do it.

I suppose the only response is to say "Thanks. It's good to know that the possessors of deeper insight acknowledge that my lack of depth is OK. That will comfort me as I confront my shallow existence."


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> With all due respect, measuring musical performance in terms of closeness to consensus seems superficial. The only reason it is mentioned because that is a characteristic some people care about. *Yes. there are people who are superficial and it's OK to be superficial*.


Is it Ok to make superficial comments like this about people you don't even know? Puts me in mind of Malvolio in Twelth Night:
"Go hang yourselves, all of you! You're all lazy and shallow. I'm not like you. I have a higher future waiting for me. You'll know more about it later."


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> Is it Ok to make superficial comments like this about people you don't even know? Puts me in mind of Malvolio in Twelth Night:
> "Go hang yourselves, all of you! You're all lazy and shallow. I'm not like you. I have a higher future waiting for me. You'll know more about it later."


Yes. I think there is something lacking in some posts in this thread which I could refer to as a lack of poetry (or more prosaically as a superficial understanding of language).

Communication is difficult, so we will all get things wrong (in the sense of failing to get our meaning across). One thing we have to be aware of, and wary of, is that words often carry a small number of primary meanings but a wealth of background associations, metaphorical elements, connotations. Poetry often exploits these to convey deep meanings, as does rhetoric for more practical purposes. It is one of the glories of language that these subtleties exist.

To take a particular example, you cannot use the word "superficial" to native speakers of English without bringing into play the background associations. If you talk about a musical interpretation and you use a word like superficial, then it is laughable to suggest that your comments come from anything other than a feeling that your own understanding of these matters is superior. If you don't want to communicate that sense of your own superiority then use a different form of words.

Now if someone said, I have superior depth of understanding and I am telling you that your preference is superficial, then that would have the merit of honesty.

To say that someone else's preference is superficial, but that that is just your opinion demonstrates that you do not understand the language (or you do, and you are being deliberately provocative). Oh, and by the way, I say that as someone who has a superior understanding of the language. That's me being honest.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> To say that someone else's preference is superficial, but that that is just your opinion demonstrates that you do not understand the language (or you do, and you are being deliberately provocative). Oh, and by the way, I say that as someone who has a superior understanding of the language. That's me being honest.


Similarly with saying that one's own prefernces approach objective truth, but that that is just your opinion.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> Similarly with saying that one's own prefernces approach objective truth, but that that is just your opinion.


To say someone's preferences [which are by nature subjective] approach objective truth is actually an extraordinary thing to say!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> To say someone's preferences [which are by nature subjective] approach objective truth is actually an extraordinary thing to say!


Good thing no one has said that...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes. I think there is something lacking in some posts in this thread which I could refer to as a lack of poetry (or more prosaically as a superficial understanding of language).
> 
> Communication is difficult, so we will all get things wrong (in the sense of failing to get our meaning across). One thing we have to be aware of, and wary of, is that words often carry a small number of primary meanings but a wealth of background associations, metaphorical elements, connotations. Poetry often exploits these to convey deep meanings, as does rhetoric for more practical purposes. It is one of the glories of language that these subtleties exist.
> 
> To take a particular example, you cannot use the word "superficial" to native speakers of English without bringing into play the background associations. If you talk about a musical interpretation and you use a word like superficial, then it is laughable to suggest that your comments come from anything other than a feeling that your own understanding of these matters is superior. If you don't want to communicate that sense of your own superiority then use a different form of words.
> 
> Now if someone said, I have superior depth of understanding and I am telling you that your preference is superficial, then that would have the merit of honesty.
> 
> To say that someone else's preference is superficial, but that that is just your opinion demonstrates that you do not understand the language (or you do, and you are being deliberately provocative). Oh, and by the way, I say that as someone who has a superior understanding of the language. That's me being honest.


Judging by the angry responses, I agree that "superficial" is a loaded word I apologize for using that.

No, I am not a native English speaker. Yes, I have a superficial understanding of the word "superficial".

I only meant this as indicating it is the taste for appearance, for surface level concern, which always seems perfectly fine with me. "Superficial" is being applied in art critiques all the time. The problem for me is that I don't see why it is so bad to be superficial (which comes across as arrogant is understandable).

Ravel pride himself for being superficial. It is fair to say that Deco arts, Op arts, Pop art, or Minimalism are also superficial. That's kind of the point! It is precisely because they are superficial that they challenge our preconceptions about art. Looking at the form instead of its content can reveal more about the content. Appearance can be more important than that which is behind it.

That's why I say "some people are superficial and it's OK to be superficial". It means they don't care about the depth and maybe there is nothing if you delve deeper. If I am provoking, I am provoking the preconceived idea that being superficial is bad. I guess people still care deeply that they don't appear to be superficial.

So yes, I promise not to use the word "superficial" to enrage any of you. How about the word "surface level", or "rudimentary", or "simple"? Or are they still carry an air of contempt or condescending and should be all avoided?

I certainly have no problem that you declare your superiority understanding of the English language or anything else over me (and I will be cheering for you). And your honesty is admirable.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Is it Ok to make superficial comments like this about people you don't even know? Puts me in mind of Malvolio in Twelth Night:
> "Go hang yourselves, all of you! You're all lazy and shallow. I'm not like you. I have a higher future waiting for me. You'll know more about it later."


You are exaggerating but I enjoyed the quote.

It is certainly a fact that people care about surface-level things because I am one of them and I have encountered a lot of them. That's why surface-level concerns should be respected (i.e., mentioning whether performance A is consensual or performance B is idiosyncratic as a recommendation)

Some people care about the cover art of the CD. Others care about whether is by a particular Maestro/orchestra they like. All I am saying is that it's OK to care about these. But this level of analysis is "surface level" because it has nothing to do with the musical content.

And sure, it is OK to make surface-level comments. I don't know about you but I made them all the time. Sometimes I want to go in deep, sometimes I want to stay shallow.


----------



## JAS

It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it is perfectly fair to complain about the cover and judge it on its own merits.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> I didn't read E Al's post as suggesting this at all.


Let me quote E AI's own words.



> The central point of the distributions is something that could be measured (in terms of crude matters such as overall timing, degree of fluctuation in tempo, degree of fluctuation in X or Y) and having done so you would have a set of facts about the *consensus view, an "objective" measurement* of the core of what expert interpreters deliver about the piece.
> 
> Now turn to the listeners. *Do you prefer a more or less idiosyncratic performance - one which is closer to the consensus or not?*


He is suggesting "measuring performance by closeness to consensus" by bringing in concepts of statistics (consensus as the center of distribution of quantified characteristics). I took his/her idea more seriously than you gave me credit for.

I did not misrepresent his view, which to me, seem surface-level and questionable.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Judging by the angry responses, I agree that "superficial" is a loaded word I apologize for using that.
> 
> No, I am not a native English speaker. Yes, I have a superficial understanding of the word "superficial".


Alright mate you are excused. Your English is no doubt vastly better than my grasp of whatever your native language is! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Some words from others on the fascination with Furtwängler:

Geza Anda:

"His art was the art of _inner perfection_. For him mechanical precision was not the task of the conductor, but the expression of a musical problem's solution. He did not "shape" the broadest patterns, or "build" the crescendi, or "place" the accents. Everything arose from a musical First Cause, as islands arise from the sea, moved by mysterious powers. His interpretation of a piece was not speculative pedantry to effect "fidelity to the work," it _was_ fidelity to the work because it grasped the inner pulse of the music. Furtwängler's artistry was the struggle of a human being to comprehend the Infinite through the heavenly language of music."

Mrs. Arnold Schoenberg:

"Furtwängler knew that the Germans had done a terrible wrong to Schoenberg and he suffered for it as a German, and felt it his duty to interfere. Not only as a musician but also as a friend. But the most remarkable moment came when he, more desperate than Schoenberg, cried out, "What shall I do now?!" Arnold told him, "You have to stay and conduct good music." He did, and whatever trick was used to soil his name, instigating a whisper campaign and later a very loud one: _he never was a Nazi_. So I shall erect to him a monument in my heart and forget the already forgotten Toscanini. Because Furtwängler tried to serve Art and not let Art serve him."


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Furtwängler don't seem too keen on Schoenberg's music but he greatly admired Schoenberg.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Let me quote E AI's own words.
> 
> He is suggesting "measuring performance by closeness to consensus" by bringing in concepts of statistics (consensus as the center of distribution of quantified characteristics). I took his/her idea more seriously than you gave me credit for.
> 
> I did not misrepresent his view, which to me, seem surface-level and questionable.


I described a process which might be conducted to determine an "objective" measurement of certain matters. I even (in order to be clear) indicated that this could only apply to "crude" characteristics. I did not make any claim that carrying out this measurement was meaningful, superficial, profound desirable, or anything like that. I merely noted that it could in principle be done.

I then indicated that if it was done it would not be unreasonable to refer to some central zones of the distributions using the word consensus. I did not say that was a good idea or a bad idea or something I supported. I merely indicated that it could in principle be done. In a way I was just seeking to clarify the use of a fairly standard English word in a particular context.

Having set up this indication of a consensus and contrasted it with idiosyncratic performances (taken to mean those which were away from that consensus area) I merely suggested that maybe some people might tend to prefer one type and some might prefer the other. I claimed no linkage between that possibility and any profound analysis of deep musical truth. I think it is a reasonable suggestion to discuss in a constructive fashion.

And by the way, replacing superficial with surface-level, does not remove the staggering condescension in your remarks. If you can't understand why that is, then perhaps you will when you're a bit more mature. (I can condescend too.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> And by the way, replacing superficial with surface-level, does not remove the staggering condescension in your remarks. If you can't understand why that is, then perhaps you will when you're a bit more mature. (I can condescend too.)


Now you are attacking me as being "immature" just because I made a comment on your theory being "surface-level". Yes, I can tell that you can condescend and I am proud of you. I can also tell that you show great maturity, clearly more mature than me. I can only dream to be as mature as you (and it will be a good dream).



Eclectic Al said:


> I described a process which might be conducted to determine an "objective" measurement of certain matters. I even (in order to be clear) indicated that this could only apply to "crude" characteristics. I did not make any claim that carrying out this measurement was meaningful, superficial, profound desirable, or anything like that. I merely noted that it could in principle be done.


I appreciate your effort to balance your position and leave room for debate. But your defenses seem to be over-reacting to my "s******-level" comment about your theory. I certainly didn't say what you have said is "uninteresting", "meaningless", "undesirable", or "unquestionable". And if you are not willing to take a stand on your theory, I am afraid others won't either.

What you have said do not change the fact that such a "scientific" or "objective" analysis of music performance is "rudimentary" (as another substitute for "*******-level") at best. I will give you 3 reasons

1. Specific characteristics are taken out of context of the music (the relations between these characteristics are more important)
2. Characteristics are arbitrary data compressions of the musical information (no idea to what extent what they represent)
3. No direct connection between these characteristics to the inner experience of music (a fast soggy tempo may not feel fast)



Eclectic Al said:


> Having set up this indication of a consensus and contrasted it with idiosyncratic performances (taken to mean those which were away from that consensus area) I merely suggested that maybe some people might tend to prefer one type and some might prefer the other. I claimed no linkage between that possibility and any profound analysis of deep musical truth. I think it is a reasonable suggestion to discuss in a constructive fashion.


That's precisely why it is a *******-level analysis (which is fine). You are also assuming recordings are a representative random sample of the population (live performances and potential recordings). Otherwise, the "consensus" as defined by you (you have not clearly defined but any measure of centrality) is statistically biased. There is also no clear way to interpret what this "consensus" even means. Even if you have done all your scientific due diligence, this is still a -level analysis (I don't see any serious scientist would claim otherwise) because as you put it "no linkage between that possibility and any profound analysis of deep musical truth".

I hope you do realize that it's unlikely anyone else will take your theory as seriously as I do. That's why I'd like to give you my fair and honest assessment that the analysis you proposed is ( ).


----------



## Eclectic Al

You've got me in a sense: I'm not willing to give any serious attention to profound analysis of deep musical truth because it is Russell's teapot.

Simply to assert something exists, with no particular evidence or indeed meaningful explanation of what it is, and then to demand that other people engage deeply with consideration of its nature does not give that demand any authority. I choose not to build ever more powerful telescopes in the search for the teapot, because no reasonable grounds have been provided for thinking that there is anything to look for.

It is striking that when anyone has asked in this thread for a bit of a description of this musical truth there is never much of a response. Indeed sometimes the idea is that it is different for each of us: that is, your teapot is my saucepan. Well that's helpful.

(BTW: You can't really criticise my "theory" because I wasn't developing one; I was merely inviting others to comment on some fairly casual observations which I was making (albeit that I chose my words quite carefully in seeking not to insult anyone). It's a bit like me saying: "Hey, have you noticed that it seems like some pots of water boil at different temperatures?" The response then is "That's a very superficial theory". Well, it wasn't a theory at all. A theory might relate to how water with and without salt in it behaves, or water with or without a lid on the container, with some more fundamental explanation of why the observations occur.)


----------



## DavidA

Post deleted......................


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> You've got me in a sense: I'm not willing to give any serious attention to profound analysis of deep musical truth because it *is Russell's teapot*.


Russel's imaginary teapot! We are scraping the philosophical barrel! :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> Russel's imaginary teapot! We are scraping the philosophical barrel! :lol:


Or is it a barrel? Perhaps it's a bucket. It certainly needs investigation of a non-superficial nature.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Russel's imaginary teapot! We are scraping the philosophical barrel! :lol:


Not as long as there's still a rotten tree in the woods about to fall over! :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> Not as long as there's still a rotten tree in the woods about to fall over! :lol:


I predict a long discussion now about whether the rotten tree is deciduous or evergreen.

Some people here think that trees must drop their leaves in order to express the deepest truths of tree-ness: the strong surge of energy in spring following the glacially slow winter hibernation provides an ideal platform for the glories of summer, the triumph of fruit, and then the gentle nostalgia of the decline back towards winter, as the leaves colour and fall. The profound engagement that this gives in the objective truth of tree goes beyond the mundane expression which is delivered by evergreens, with their stability of expression and their inflexible adherence to a single standard description of tree, such as you might find written down or pictured in a book.

Surely therefore that rotten tree is deciduous, as the objectively ideal expression of tree. Of course, I'm not saying that my subjective objectively ideal expression and yours have to be the same, so it is OK if your objectively ideal expression of tree is evergreen. That might be superficial, but it's OK to be superficial. And after all, it's only my opinion that your preference is superficial, so that's not insulting at all.

Others disagree.


----------



## Woodduck

Eclectic Al said:


> I predict a long discussion now about whether the rotten tree is deciduous or evergreen.
> 
> Some people here think that trees must drop their leaves in order to express the deepest truths of tree-ness: the strong surge of energy in spring following the glacially slow winter hibernation provides an ideal platform for the glories of summer, the triumph of fruit, and then the gentle nostalgia of the decline back towards winter, as the leaves colour and fall. The profound engagement that this gives in the objective truth of tree goes beyond the mundane expression which is delivered by evergreens, with their stability of expression and their inflexible adherence to a single standard description of tree, such as you might find written down or pictured in a book.
> 
> Surely therefore that rotten tree is deciduous, as the objectively ideal expression of tree. Of course, I'm not saying that my subjective objectively ideal expression and yours have to be the same, so it is OK if your objectively ideal expression of tree is evergreen. That might be superficial, but it's OK to be superficial. And after all, it's only my opinion that your preference is superficial, so that's not insulting at all.
> 
> Others disagree.


An admirable argument, finely expressed. But I am one of those who disagree. I think the real truth - the truer truth, if you will - is that the deciduous tree can't make up its mind ("mind" here not implying consciousness but a more fundamental, pre-conscious agency which generates the phenomena of which consciousness is but a pale reflection); it cannot decide whether Treeness is properly expressed _with_ leaves or _without_ them. The varied colors the leaves assume before falling exemplify this confusion. The conifer, however, has no such uncertainty; by dropping its needles at approximately the same rate that it generates new ones, and by keeping its colors within the range of Greenness, it preserves essential Treeness as a timeless and transcendent quality: eternal Being beyond, yet contained within, Becoming.

Of course I may be barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Geza Anda:
> 
> "His art was the art of _inner perfection_. For him mechanical precision was not the task of the conductor, but the expression of a musical problem's solution. He did not "shape" the broadest patterns, or "build" the crescendi, or "place" the accents. Everything arose from a musical First Cause, as islands arise from the sea, moved by mysterious powers. His interpretation of a piece was not speculative pedantry to effect "fidelity to the work," it _was_ fidelity to the work because it grasped the inner pulse of the music. Furtwängler's artistry was the struggle of a human being to comprehend the Infinite through the heavenly language of music."


I think this is what is mean't by "word salad."


----------



## Woodduck

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think this is what is mean't by "word salad."


It does at least beg for translation into plain language. Let me have a go...

"His art was the art of inner perfection. For him mechanical precision was not the task of the conductor, but the expression of a musical problem's solution."

Translation: He was more concerned with finding and expressing the meaning of a work than with perfect physical execution of it.

"He did not 'shape' the broadest patterns, or 'build' the crescendi, or 'place' the accents. Everything arose from a musical First Cause, as islands arise from the sea, moved by mysterious powers. His interpretation of a piece was not speculative pedantry to effect 'fidelity to the work,' it was fidelity to the work because it grasped the inner pulse of the music."

Translation: He made musical gestures seem natural, organic expressions of the meaning of a work, rather than calculated effects based on an idea of it.

"Furtwängler's artistry was the struggle of a human being to comprehend the Infinite through the heavenly language of music."

Translation: Furtwangler's search for the meaning of music was a search for the meaning of existence.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ One thing I learnt from this thread: the American plain style has really took over the world.

Despite your valiant effort, much is lost in your translation.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ^ One thing I learnt from this thread: the American plain style has really took over the world.


If that were true, this thread would not be 96 pages long. 

My translation was intended only as an aid for those who don't care for word salad (at least without feta and black olives). Perhaps next time I'll write a sonnet and fill it with nebulous metaphors and elliptical equivocations, with the final couplet end-rhymed for a suggestion of moral finality. Or perhaps we should just listen to some Furtwangler and pass around a joint.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Furtwangler 1944 Eroica with VPO






This remarkable recording has been a personal favorite of mine. The first time I heard the Marcia funebre, I wept. The second movement has an aura of solemity and nobility that is utterly compelling. I couldn't help associating it with the image of the processing of the funeral of hero in a greek tragedy or epic. The breadth and depth of this movement are overwhelming. The entire symphony is played at such a stately pace that it reveals a whole new aspect of the work for me personally. I will let the music speak for itself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

Yup, my favorite Eroica


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> 
> Yup, my favorite Eroica


This one?:









Fabulous performance in amazingly good sound for 1944. And given the prices for used copies on Amazon, I'm glad that I picked this up when I did.


----------



## JAS

^^^ high prices might be caused by people misreading Eroica.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

More reflections on Furtwängler:

Pablo Casals:

"Of faultless taste in the interpretation of the great masters, he made his music live with all its brilliance, all its power, and all its radiance. My admiration for Furtwängler caused me to reply to his detractors on several occasions, and to defend him from the biased criticism directed at him. Though in conflict with "tradition" and sclerotic "schools," the Master who now has just died was a faithful servant of the immortal spirit of the music."

Paul Hindemith:

"His critics and enviers themselves knew well that the instant he raised his baton, the soul of the music alone stood before us - through him, its medium, this soul itself in its most convincing form spoke even to those who had envisioned some other tempo, movement of phrases and structural development. We all know the "possessed" musicians who take all obstacles by storm, we know the overpowering technicians of the keyboard, the voice, the strings, and the podium; and we know the expedient career-makers. He was none of these. What drove Furtwängler on was more. It was a deep belief in the fundamental truth of the Beautiful, a belief which enabled him to understand how to transform musical experiences into confessions of faith: and whoever can do that is more than a conductor, more than a composer, and more than a pianist. He is simply a truly great musician and a great man."

Ernest Ansermet:

"To my mind he was the most genuine, the most searching, and - to summarize all my thoughts - the greatest interpreter of the Classics in our century. There have appeared in our musical life some currents of new ideas, of new ways of seeing and feeling which are profoundly disturbing. And we could not help but notice in opposition to these Furtwängler's approach to music, which arose from a long tradition, a true kinship with the works he interpreted, and his deeply mature awareness of their meaning, gained through experience and meditation - an approach which we could consider as a norm. The kind of opposition resulting from this approach of Furtwängler's, which was different from that of others famous interpreters of his time, has hindered the public in these last years from appreciating him in his true measure. He suffered much from this because he knew exactly what he was doing and what he had to communicate. His experience, of course, was evident. The critics debated him, yet at the very moment his performances began, the public - the real public - was overwhelmed."

Sir Colin Davis:

"When on his best form, he was the greatest conductor of his generation - I suppose this means he conducted works the way I like them to go!"

Sir Thomas Beecham:

"I shall not speak to you tonight about Wilhelm Furtwängler's musicianship. You know well enough about that. He was a fine musician and a man of the highest integrity. In the difficult times in Germany he protected the weak and assisted the helpless. My tribute is to a man of remarkable and sterling character, and we see very few of them anywhere in these days."


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Furtwangler 1944 Eroica with VPO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This remarkable recording has been a personal favorite of mine. The first time I heard the Marcia funebre, I wept. The second movement has an aura of solemity and nobility that is utterly compelling. I couldn't help associating it with the image of the processing of the funeral of hero in a greek tragedy or epic. The breadth and depth of this movement are overwhelming. The entire symphony is played at such a stately pace that it reveals a whole new aspect of the work for me personally. I will let the music speak for itself.


As the version on my shelves the first movement is too slow to be convincing. 'Stately' is not the way I'd describe the revolutionary Eroica symphony. It's allegro con brio and as with the VPO later Furtwangler is not near that. I was disappointed in the funeral march - nowhere near the cataclysm I'd expected - but that might be because the recording transfer is somewhat flat.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> As the version on my shelves the first movement is too slow to be convincing. 'Stately' is not the way I'd describe the revolutionary Eroica symphony. It's allegro con brio and as with the VPO later Furtwangler is not near that. I was disappointed in the funeral march - nowhere near the cataclysm I'd expected - but that might be because the recording transfer is somewhat flat.


What's the point of responding about a different recording than the one we are all talking about???


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What's the point of responding about a different recording than the one we are all talking about???


I am responding to the one we are talking about.


----------



## BachIsBest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Furtwangler 1944 Eroica with VPO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This remarkable recording has been a personal favorite of mine. The first time I heard the Marcia funebre, I wept. The second movement has an aura of solemity and nobility that is utterly compelling. I couldn't help associating it with the image of the processing of the funeral of hero in a greek tragedy or epic. The breadth and depth of this movement are overwhelming. The entire symphony is played at such a stately pace that it reveals a whole new aspect of the work for me personally. I will let the music speak for itself.


"my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo"
-Ludwig van Beethoven

Perhaps I'm moved by that recording on a level that is entirely subjective; a mere sum of my life's experiences resulting in a complex but predictable personal taste that agrees with this one recording. Or perhaps Furtwängler was reaching to something deeply human, and heartfelt, that transcends mere personal experience. I can't prove that it is the later, no one really can, but I'll still believe it to be so.

On a more analytic note, the thing I find so remarkable about Furtwangler's use of rubato and tempo changes is how little you notice it. Often I'll realise that the tempo has changed, just knowing the piece and the previous tempo, but am unable to pinpoint in my memory exactly where it happened. With many modern conductors who experiment with tempo, like Currentzis or Thielemann, is that their tempo changes are obviously pre-meditated and bring attention to themselves. Furtwängler's are obviously not, they flow naturally with, I know this word has become rather loaded on this thread so pardon the expression, the truth of the music. With Furtwängler he makes playing Beethoven with rubato sound as natural and right as playing Chopin with rubato.


----------



## Eclectic Al

BachIsBest said:


> "my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo"
> -Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> Perhaps I'm moved by that recording on a level that is entirely subjective; a mere sum of my life's experiences resulting in a complex but predictable personal taste that agrees with this one recording. Or perhaps Furtwängler was reaching to something deeply human, and heartfelt, that transcends mere personal experience. I can't prove that it is the later, no one really can, but I'll still believe it to be so.
> 
> On a more analytic note, the thing I find so remarkable about Furtwangler's use of rubato and tempo changes is how little you notice it. Often I'll realise that the tempo has changed, just knowing the piece and the previous tempo, but am unable to pinpoint in my memory exactly where it happened. With many modern conductors who experiment with tempo, like Currentzis or Thielemann, is that their tempo changes are obviously pre-meditated and bring attention to themselves. Furtwängler's are obviously not, they flow naturally with, I know this word has become rather loaded on this thread so pardon the expression, the truth of the music. With Furtwängler he makes playing Beethoven with rubato sound as natural and right as playing Chopin with rubato.


Indeed. The key is perhaps whether a performance seems natural to you, or to me. That will be a major factor in shaping our own preferences.

The only thing I might tweak in what you say would be to replace "the truth of the music" with something like "the truth of the music as I experience it". If I then interpret "truth" as meaning "a sense of rightness" (which is not an unreasonable meaning to attach to it in artistic matters) then we're in accord.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. The key is perhaps whether a performance seems natural to you, or to me. That will be a key factor in shaping our own preferences.
> 
> The only thing I might tweak in what you say would be to replace "the truth of the music" with something like "the truth of the music as I experience it". If I then interpret "truth" as meaning "a sense of rightness" (which is not an unreasonable meaning to attach to it in artistic matters) then we're in accord.


I think this is the point. It is entirely subjective. The way Furtwangler interprets Beethoven's first movement marking does not ring true with me. But if it seems right to other people then that is fine. Where I do resist is when some people insist that Furtwangler has some deep inner 'truth' and other interpreters haven't. What they mean is they prefer Furtwangler's interpretation.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think this is the point. It is entirely subjective. The way Furtwangler interprets Beethoven's first movement marking does not ring true with me. But if it seems right to other people then that is fine. Where I do resist is when some people insist that Furtwangler has some deep inner 'truth' and other interpreters haven't. What they mean is they prefer Furtwangler's interpretation.


I think it's fine if people want to insist on what they hear in one interpretation over another - we don't have to agree with it any more than we have to agree that their 'interpretation' is right. I don't see why the claim that there is a 'deep inner truth' can't be accepted as equivalent to 'it seems to me that Toscanini (or whoever) gets right the pacing/musicality/colour/emotion (whatever) where others don't.'


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I think it's fine if people want to insist on what they hear in one interpretation over another - we don't have to agree with it any more than we have to agree that their 'interpretation' is right. I don't see why the claim that there is a 'deep inner truth' can't be accepted as equivalent to 'it seems to me that Toscanini (or whoever) gets right the pacing/musicality/colour/emotion (whatever) where others don't.'


As long as they don't say that 'truth' can only be discerned by certain enlightened mortals through this particular conductor. The problem is as soon as we start using the word 'truth' we tend to start talking in absolutes. So if I say conductor X has 'the truth' then it implies conductor Y (who takes a different approach) hasn't. If we say conductor X brings out the nobility of the music in a way I prefer then that it fine. It leaves it open for someone else to say 'conductor Y brings out the fire in the music in the way I prefer'


----------



## JAS

MacLeod said:


> I think it's fine if people want to insist on what they hear in one interpretation over another - we don't have to agree with it any more than we have to agree that their 'interpretation' is right. I don't see why the claim that there is a 'deep inner truth' can't be accepted as equivalent to 'it seems to me that Toscanini (or whoever) gets right the pacing/musicality/colour/emotion (whatever) where others don't.'


. . . as long as the person making said claim understands it as a personal position (and not a universal fact), and is willing to acknowledge it as such if challenged. (It is quite common to speak or to write posts in a kind of shorthand, where no one is really expected to mark every opinion with "I think," particularly when it should be obvious that it is an opinion.)


----------



## Guest

Of course. But then, TC has struggled for at least as long as I've been here to establish universally the practice of acknowledging the subjective nature of the opinions expressed here. Many members - 'senior' and 'junior' - much prefer to assert their right to claim that their opinion on Mozart/Cage/Rattle/Benedetti is backed by objective evidence. Whether they say any of this in longhand, or offer any evidence is immaterial to their belief in their entitlement to make such a claim.

I'll watch out for the next time any of us falls foul of such a tendency!


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> I think it's fine if people want to insist on what they hear in one interpretation over another - we don't have to agree with it any more than we have to agree that their 'interpretation' is right. I don't see why the claim that there is a 'deep inner truth' can't be accepted as equivalent to 'it seems to me that Toscanini (or whoever) gets right the pacing/musicality/colour/emotion (whatever) where others don't.'


I am absolutely in agreement with your 'it seems to me that Toscanini (or whoever) gets right the pacing/musicality/colour/emotion (whatever) where others don't' formulation, and I am equally happy to accept the alternative with Toscanini replaced by Furtwangler.

If we take it that 'deep inner truth' means the same as 'my personal sense of the rightness of a performance', as I think you are suggesting, then I'm happy: but let's see if it suits everyone.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> As long as they don't say that 'truth' can only be discerned by certain enlightened mortals through this particular conductor. The problem is as soon as we start using the word 'truth' we tend to start talking in absolutes. So if I say conductor X has 'the truth' then it implies conductor Y (who takes a different approach) hasn't. If we say conductor X brings out the nobility of the music in a way I prefer then that it fine. It leaves it open for someone else to say 'conductor Y brings out the fire in the music in the way I prefer'


The people taking in absolutes are the ones who say that a conductor like Toscanini is playing the actual music and a conductor like Furtwangler is "adding things." They are both interpreting the truth of the score the way they see it.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The people taking in absolutes are the ones who say that a conductor like Toscanini is playing the actual music and a conductor like Furtwangler is "adding things." They are both interpreting the truth of the score the way they see it.


Sorry but you've been saying things like Furtwangler was the one with 'the truth'. That is why I was making these points. Just look back over your posts.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you've been saying things like Furtwangler was the one with 'the truth'. That is why I was making these points. Just look back over your posts.


I said CLOSER to the truth in MY OPINION. And that is not the case in every single one of his recordings either. Would you please stop slandering me? It is clear that you are engaged in a juvenile game of oneupmanship.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said CLOSER to the truth in MY OPINION. And that is not the case in every single one of his recordings either. Would you please stop slandering me? It is clear that you are engaged in a juvenile game of oneupmanship.


I'm not slandering you at all - I'm just saying what you said. Just look back over your posts. I'm sorry but name-calling is not my game and I'm not gonna indulge in it


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

davida said:


> i'm not slandering you at all - i'm just saying what you said. Just look back over your posts. I'm sorry but name-calling is not my game and i'm not gonna indulge in it


You are not saying what I said. Quote me directly if you have a shred of integrity and decency! The reality is I can quote myself stating the exact opposite of what you are claiming!!!

How many times have I said "No one has a monopoly on the truth!" How many times have I said that and you insist on slandering me!!!!


----------



## Enthusiast

Come on - keep the argument going! We will soon reach 100 pages, having learned very little about Furtwangler except that some people revere his work with a passion and some others don't (and are just as passionate about their positions). When it does reach 100 pages we should have a cake.


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you've been saying things like Furtwangler was the one with 'the truth'. That is why I was making these points. Just look back over your posts.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I said CLOSER to the truth in MY OPINION.... Would you please stop slandering me? It is clear that you are engaged in a juvenile game of oneupmanship.


Does the Member for Furtwangler need it pointed out, again, that adding 'in my opinion' to some statement of fact does very little to alter the meaning in any relevant sense?

Imagine a scientist says the following: 'God, not evolution by natural selection, explains human beings'. When asked to justify, he then says '_In my opinion_, God, not evolution by natural selection, explains human beings'.

What on earth has he added to his initial claim? Ok he's added the idea that it may not be established wisdom to think as he thinks, but he has certainly added nothing to distance _himself _from his initial claim!

Or imagine a politican says the following: 'Homosexuality is a sin and should be punished by the law'. When asked to justify, he then says '_In my opinion_, homosexuality is a sin and should be punished by the law'.

Again, in moving from his first to his second statement he might be absolving others of his truth claim. But he has done nothing to absolve _himself_! If anything, has has associated himself _more closely_ with the truth claim, as opposed to it being just conventional wisdom!


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Does the Member for Furtwangler need it pointed out, again, that adding 'in my opinion' to some statement of fact does very little to alter the meaning in any relevant sense?


You kinda cherry-picked examples there; choose something where a certain truth is not generally accepted, as in the claim about musical truth. For example, if a physicist says, "in my opinion, string theory is false", he is obviously recognising that other physicists hold different opinions and he may be wrong. If instead, he says, "string theory is false", he is stating it as an absolute fact.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> You kinda cherry-picked examples there; choose something where a certain truth is not generally accepted, as in the claim about musical truth. For example, if a physicist says, "in my opinion, string theory is false", he is obviously recognising that other physicists hold different opinions and he may be wrong. If instead, he says, "string theory is false", he is stating it as an absolute fact.


Pretty sure I covered this in my post.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

BachIsBest said:


> You kinda cherry-picked examples there; choose something where a certain truth is not generally accepted, as in the claim about musical truth. For example, if a physicist says, "in my opinion, string theory is false", he is obviously recognising that other physicists hold different opinions and he may be wrong. If instead, he says, "string theory is false", he is stating it as an absolute fact.


In my opinion, "in my opinion" is more like a courteous gesture than anything informative, unless you are addressing laymen to signify that this is not a consensus or a fact.

When talking about music, I think it's well understood that even if you made a statement as if it's a consensus or a fact, it is still an opinion. Therefore, "in my opinion" is redundant and it's primarily used as a get out of jail free card by invoking "everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion or to lower pretense.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, accusing others for stating an opinion without attaching "in my opinion" as stating an universal fact is misguided. Universal statements are just one type of an opinion (with universal quantifier), such as "every man is bad", "every star system has a flying teapot". They are not directly verifiable so they are not facts, that's why these universal statements are opinions.

The infinite loop Roger seem to be stuck in, in my very humble opinion, is precisely that he mistakenly treats BH's opinions, which are universal, as stating universal facts. Then he attacks these opinions by invoking falsifiability.

If what BH said are unfalsifiable, ie, cannot never be proven wrong, then what BH said are opinions instead of facts, by definition.

If what BH said are opinions, then Roger's attacks are meaningless because you cannot criticize opinions for being unfalsifiable which is its own definition.



> Imagine a scientist says the following: 'God, not evolution by natural selection, explains human beings'. When asked to justify, he then says 'In my opinion, God, not evolution by natural selection, explains human beings'.


In the example of the Creationist Scientist, invoking falsifiability is appropriate because it is the standard of scientific theory. The accused scientist cannot retract by attaching "in my opinion" because his opinion is intended as a scientific theory that has to meet the falsifiability requirement. But BH did not intend nor pretend his opinions as a scientific theory so falsifiability is misapplied here.



> Or imagine a politican says the following: 'Homosexuality is a sin and should be punished by the law'. When asked to justify, he then says 'In my opinion, homosexuality is a sin and should be punished by the law'.


In the example of the Homophobic Politician, the critique is based on moral ground, not on philosophical or scientific ground. Therefore, you cannot exonerate yourself for spewing hateful comment by attaching "in my opinion", it is precisely your opinion that is being criticized. But Roger is not criticizing BH on any moral ground.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Come on - keep the argument going! We will soon reach 100 pages, having learned very little about Furtwangler except that some people revere his work with a passion and some others don't (and are just as passionate about their positions). When it does reach 100 pages we should have a cake.


German chocolate, please. Or is that too Furtwanglerisch?


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The infinite loop Roger seem to be stuck in, in my very humble opinion, is precisely that he mistakenly treats BH's opinions, which are universal, as stating universal facts. Then he attacks these opinions by invoking falsifiability.


I'm simply pointing out that adding 'in my opinion' to a claim does not absolve personal commitment to it. In this case, it's that simple. I wouldn't think this needs to the subject of even more debate.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> I'm simply pointing out that adding 'in my opinion' to a claim does not absolve personal commitment to it. In this case, it's that simple. I wouldn't think this needs to the subject of even more debate.


You missed the point which I was getting at which was the implication which we have certainly had that one interpretation is a higher art form and 'nearer' to 'the truth' (whatever that might be) than others. That to me certainly comes through on this thread. The whole references to science is a total red herring because the only way we can talk about absolute proof in sciences is in the realm of mathematics


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> You missed the point which I was getting at which was the implication which we have certainly had that one interpretation is a higher art form and 'nearer' to 'the truth' (whatever that might be) than others. That to me certainly comes through on this thread. The whole references to science is a total red herring because the only way we can talk about absolute proof in sciences is in the realm of mathematics


Yes, I agree, and I would go back to BH's remark here to explore the matter. He said "I said CLOSER to the truth in MY OPINION."

This raises the question of whether OPINION relates to 2 things, (1) the closeness and (2) the truth, or just to 1 thing, (1) the closeness.

With the former, you have an opinion concerning the truth, and you have an opinion about the closeness of performances to that truth. Your preference is for performances closer to your truth. When you have a conversation with someone else who has different preferences, you can respectfully disagree because neither of you is claiming that the other is wrong: you can simply have different truths (or, as I would prefer, different ideal performances in mind).

With the latter, you assert that the truth is not a matter of opinion, so I will refer to it as TRUTH. You also state opinions regarding closeness to TRUTH. You must, therefore, believe (a) that you can meaningfully have opinions about closeness to TRUTH and (b) that one performance is closer to TRUTH than another. If someone disagrees with you it is your opinion that they are wrong. The TRUTH is out there, and your opinion is either (i) that the other person misjudges closeness or (ii) that they do not understand TRUTH, or (iii) both. All of these are ways of being wrong.

So in the latter case it is your opinion that they are wrong (and it may be their opinion that you are wrong, or it may be their opinion that truth is a matter of opinion, but either way it is your opinion that they are wrong.) This would not be too problematic if you then entered into detailed discussion about your opinions. You could then have a debate which might reveal something about your TRUTH and/or their truth, and/or about how to judge closeness.

However, what seems to happen is that details are not provided, and instead words like "superficial" are brought into play. Unless a description of what deeper aspects are missing from a performance is provided, alongside some reasoning about why these deeper aspects move matters closer to the TRUTH, this is a straightforward assertion of personal superiority: "My preference is less superficial than yours."
On the other hand, if an explanation of the deeper aspects and the TRUTH is provided then the word superficial becomes redundant.

Bringing all this together I think we have the following:
- some people believe in TRUTH in music, and others don't
- those who believe in TRUTH think they can sense closeness to TRUTH in some way
- their opinion is that their preferred performances are closer to TRUTH than other performances
- it follows that their opinion is that people who prefer other performances prefer ones which are further from TRUTH
- it follows that their opinion is that those other people have inferior preferences (because further from TRUTH is worse)
- this opinion of superiority is on view when words like superficial are brought into play.

The neat way out of this is, clearly, to assume that there is no TRUTH - ie to believe that the concept of an ideal performance is a matter of opinion. I happen also to believe that this is the case. That is, I believe that we have our own preferences, shaped by the commonalities of brain function and the differences of our own personalities and experiences. Some people's preferences may be more learned or more deeply thought through than those of others, but they are still just preferences.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes, I agree, and I would go back to BH's remark here to explore the matter. He said "I said CLOSER to the truth in MY OPINION."
> 
> The neat way out of this is, clearly, to assume that there is no TRUTH - ie to believe that the concept of an ideal performance is a matter of opinion. I happen also to believe that this is the case. That is, I believe that we have our own preferences, shaped by the commonalities of brain function and the differences of our own personalities and experiences. Some people's preferences may be more learned or more deeply thought through than those of others, but they are still just preferences.


The problem comes when we use the word 'truth' in a pious way and say things like 'Conductor X was always searching for the truth' in a way that implies every other conductor wasn't. Then imply the ridiculous notion that all other conductors were just indulging in a run-through of the notes. I can assure you that every great conductor was searching for what they believed to be the 'truth' of the music. Imagine suggesting to Toscanini he wasn't searching for 'the truth' in the music? You might have come back minus teeth! All great conductors search for 'truth' in their interpretations. How we judge them depends on our preferences.


----------



## millionrainbows

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Furtwangler 1944 Eroica with VPO
> This remarkable recording has been a personal favorite of mine. The first time I heard the Marcia funebre, I wept. The second movement has an aura of solemity and nobility that is utterly compelling. I couldn't help associating it with the image of the processing of the funeral of hero in a greek tragedy or epic. The breadth and depth of this movement are overwhelming. The entire symphony is played at such a stately pace that it reveals a whole new aspect of the work for me personally. I will let the music speak for itself.


After I read your post, I went back and listened to my recording of it again. You're absolutely right. The second mvt is taken slower than I've ever heard it.This gives it a palpable sense of tragedy. While I did not weep, I misted up. Remembering that this was recorded in 1944, in my mind, this is Furtwangler lamenting the tragedy of WWII and its little "Napoleon" who nearly destroyed Europe.
This also shows how Furtwangler, in his "German-ness," was tuned-in to the musicians and the overall sense of regret and tragedy that the people of Germany must have been feeling.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> The problem comes when we use the word 'truth' in a pious way and say things like 'Conductor X was always searching for the truth' in a way that implies every other conductor wasn't. *Then imply the ridiculous notion that all other conductors were just indulging in a run-through of the notes.* *I can assure you that every great conductor was searching for what they believed to be the 'truth' of the music.* Imagine suggesting to Toscanini he wasn't searching for 'the truth' in the music? You might have come back minus teeth! All great conductors search for 'truth' in their interpretations. How we judge them depends on our preferences.


You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that "all artists are created equal." I don't agree, and I think that since art is an expression of our human "being", that it all depends on some factor of this; psychology, a realized being, the manifestation of self, etc.
Furtwangler was one of those men who had a "realized being" which shone forth in what he did. Yes, geniuses exist.

Those "other" conductors (Toscanini excluded) can, indeed, be just "going through the motions" if the music is not somehow "an extension of their being." Not everybody has this gift.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you've been saying things like Furtwangler was the one with 'the truth'. That is why I was making these points. Just look back over your posts.


You seem to be a rationalist/objectivist who is stuck in a rational quandary, trying to apply philosophical and logical criteria to an area (art) which is highly subjective.

Yes, there can be a "subjective truth" to those who perceive it. It is not an "objective" truth, so it can't be proven, but nonetheless, it is the truth to those who experience it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

millionrainbows said:


> Not everybody has this gift.


How do I figure out who does?

If I think that F was a "realised being" and T was not, then I presumably get that impression from something. How is that not going to end up being that I compare their performances against my own sense of an ideal, or I feel some sort of transcendence when I listen to his performance, or whatever. It's surely still going to come down to my feelings on the matter.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be operating on the mistaken assumption that "all artists are created equal." I don't agree, and I think that since art is an expression of our human "being", that it all depends on some factor of this; psychology, a realized being, the manifestation of self, etc.
> Furtwangler was one of those men who had a "realized being" which shone forth in what he did. Yes, geniuses exist.
> 
> Those "other" conductors (Toscanini excluded) can, indeed, be just "going through the motions" if the music is not somehow "an extension of their being." Not everybody has this gift.


Of course I'm not saying all artists are created equal. Please read what I said. We are not of course saying that Hummel was the equal of Beethoven. Nor that all conductors are equal. What I am saying is that they are different and that reaction to them is a matter of taste. Because my reaction to Furtwangler's conducting is not the same as yours does not make me a lesser being it just makes my preferences different. You're talking about Toscanini going through the motions is complete nonsense as he never 'went through the motions' any more than Furtwangler did. Music was indeed an extension of his being even if it came out differently


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to be a rationalist/objectivist who is stuck in a rational quandary, trying to apply philosophical and logical criteria to an area (art) which is highly subjective.
> 
> Yes, there can be a "subjective truth" to those who perceive it. It is not an "objective" truth, so it can't be proven, but nonetheless, it is the truth to those who experience it.


Oh for crying out loud I'm not stuck in a rationalistic quandary because I don't exalt myself above others because reckon I see a certain 'truth'. I just have different preferences from you with regard to musical interpretation of Beethoven. I could tell you that you are stuck in a rationalistic quandary because you prefer different things to me but such statements are completely meaningless when it comes to art. Funny the way you imagine people say things they would never dream of saying! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Eclectic Al said:


> How do I figure out who does? It's surely still going to come down to my feelings on the matter.


And that's it; that's the key. The subjective is guided by the feelings, not the rational mind. And the subjective might as well be metaphysics; it can't be "proven."


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Of course I'm not saying all artists are created equal. Please read what I said. We are not of course saying that Hummel was the equal of Beethoven. Nor that all conductors are equal. What I am saying is that they are different and that reaction to them is a matter of taste. Because my reaction to Furtwangler's conducting is not the same as yours does not make me a lesser being it just makes my preferences different.


I disagree; "great" artists can be not just "different," but are usually perceived as _better_ than the norm in most cases, _especially if there is a status quo collective consensus and a historical record which backs this up._ 
If you don't react to Furtwangler like I do, it may very well indicate that your "self" is not fully realized yet, and you are blinded to the "truth" of Furtwangler's being. And this is because your mind is stuck in rational thought, cut-off from the intuitive inner reality of subjectivity. _In other words, an important part of your humanity has been sacrificed on the altar of modern-day rationality.
_


> Your talking about Toscanini going through the motions is complete nonsense as he never 'went through the motions' any more than Furtwangler did. Music was indeed an extension of his being even if it came out differently.


Apparently, you're not reading the posts here very carefully. I _excluded_ Toscanini from those other mediocre conductors.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; "great" artists can be not just "different," but are usually perceived as _better_ than the norm in most cases, _especially if there is a status quo collective consensus and a historical record which backs this up._
> If you don't react to Furtwangler like I do, it may very well indicate that your "self" is not fully realized yet, and you are blinded to the "truth" of Furtwangler's being. And this is because your mind is stuck in rational thought, cut-off from the intuitive inner reality of subjectivity. _In other words, an important part of your humanity has been sacrificed on the altar of modern-day rationality.
> _
> 
> Apparently, you're not reading the posts here very carefully. I _excluded_ Toscanini from those other mediocre conductors.


Are you honestly being serious when you write this stuff? You make it sound like a religious cult. Sorry I can't take this sort of nonsense seriously. But I take it you have to be kidding and this is your attempt at the Theatre of the absurd? :lol:


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Are you honestly being serious when you write this stuff? You make it sound like a religious cult. Sorry I can't take this sort of nonsense seriously. But I take it you have to be kidding and this is your attempt at the Theatre of the absurd? :lol:


I start getting a suspicion that MR is psychoanalysing you  ...


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> I start getting a suspicion that MR is psychoanalysing you  ...


He needs to make a better job of it than that! :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "adding things."


Speaking of "adding things", you know what's great to add on top of Frankfurtwagnerisch dough? 
Tuscanypepperoni toppings (with Mozarella cheese of course)


----------



## wkasimer

For anyone mystified as to what all the fuss is about, this may be a useful link:

http://classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> For anyone mystified as to what all the fuss is about, this may be a useful link:
> 
> http://classicalnotes.net/features/furtwangler.html


"As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: handsome, energetic, charismatic, young and *utterly compliant and unprincipled*."

Ouch


----------



## hammeredklavier

_"As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: *handsome*, energetic, charismatic, young and utterly compliant and unprincipled."_

This might also be a matter of subjective taste, but am I the only one who find Furtwängler to be hotter than Karajan?


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: handsome, energetic, charismatic, young and *utterly compliant and unprincipled*."
> 
> Ouch


I like both Furtwängler and Karajan but I don't think that neither of them should be made look better through other's failures. Really, while lots of things could be said about the negative character qualities of almost any human, this is not what matters when I listen to Karajan's Beethoven or Furtwängler's Wagner. Furtwängler's greatness was so huge that I suspect an article as long as that one could be written without mentioning Karajan even once. Considering Karajan's music-making and the fact that he managed to create and keep the so-called "Karajan sound", I wouldn't describe him as utterly unprincipled. Contrasts and comparisons are not required to describe something that's already great in itself as both Karajan's and Furtwängler's conducting was. That's what slightly disturbs me about statements like the above.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: handsome, energetic, charismatic, young and *utterly compliant and unprincipled*."
> 
> Ouch


I always think that just repeating opinions like this which have little or no bearing on history is foolish. I could quote Bruno Walter:

"Please bear in mind that your art was used over the years as an extremely effective means of foreign propaganda for the regime of the devil; that you, thanks to your personal fame and great talent, performed valuable service for this regime and that in Germany itself the presence and activities of an artist of your rank helped to provide cultural and moral credit to those terrible criminals or at least gave considerable help to them…. In contrast to that, of what significance was your helpful behavior in individual cases of Jewish distress?"

(Letter to Furtwangler)

The point is neither of them behaved in the most principled fashion. But these tired old arguments in playing one off against the other is exactly what the Nazis themselves did. Furtwangler's apologists will grasp at straws. The fact is that both men conducted for the Nazis. The other fact is that neither man took part in the horrendous crimes against humanity as far as we know. They made music for the regime.


----------



## DavidA

Deleted ...................


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> _"As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: *handsome*, energetic, charismatic, young and utterly compliant and unprincipled."_
> 
> This might also be a matter of subjective taste, but am I the only one who find Furtwängler to be hotter than Karajan?


As a matter of fact Furtwangler was probably 'hotter' than Karajan - his womanising was notorious - he fathered at least 13 illegitimate children.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The point is neither of them behaved in the most principled fashion. But these tired old arguments in playing one off against the other is exactly what the Nazis themselves did. *Furtwangler's apologists will grasp at straws. *The fact is that both men conducted for the Nazis. The other fact is that neither man took part in the horrendous crimes against humanity as far as we know. They made music for the regime.


It's not grasping at straws. It is the documented truth. Furtwangler actively opposed the regime, at times daringly so. The fact that he was not thrown into a concentration camp is testimony to the paradox of the Nazis' parading German culture while in reality being opposed to its true ideals. They could not afford to kill Furtwangler. It would be like killing Beethoven.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not grasping at straws. It is the documented truth. Furtwangler actively opposed the regime, at times daringly so. The fact that he was not thrown into a concentration camp is testimony to the paradox of the Nazis' parading German culture while in reality being opposed to its true ideals. They could not afford to kill Furtwangler. It would be like killing Beethoven.


Furtwangler had the clout of oppose the regime when he felt like it. As you say, they couldn't afford to kill him. He knew it. But it is totally fruitless your repeating these tired old arguments again and again. Don't you think they've been done to death? Trying to make Fiurtwangler some kind of hero, which he wasn't? Both Furtwangler and Karajan were used by the Nazis along with other German conductors. That is history. The fact that they didn't commit any war crimes is also history. So I do not know why you have to keep countering on about it.


----------



## Enthusiast

OK. Congratulations to all on reaching Page 100. I tried to find a cake with a swastika on it but failed. So there are two cakes, one for each of the two camps. I thought the one that was dripping chocolate would do for Furtwangler camp and the rainbow cake for the "not convinced about Furtwangler" camp. But if you want to fight it out to see who gets what that is OK. Enjoy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> _"As a final measure of insurance, the Nazis seized upon the most terrible and effective weapon of all. Herbert von Karajan was a brilliant and ambitious Austrian conductor who was everything Furtwängler was not: *handsome*, energetic, charismatic, young and utterly compliant and unprincipled."_
> 
> This might also be a matter of subjective taste, but am I the only one who find Furtwängler to be hotter than Karajan?


In Nazi era Germany, you had this version of Furtwangler -







- and this version of Karajan - 









So, not a fair fight.

Turn of the century Furtwangler would be a completely different story


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In Nazi era Germany, you had this version of Furtwangler -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - and this version of Karajan -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, not a fair fight.
> 
> Turn of the century Furtwangler would be a completely different story


The tired old arguments again. When on earth are you going to pack this nonsense in and concentrate on the music. I'm not surprised as at the turn of the century Firtwangler was a young man. It is called AGEING! Don't you also realise that Karajan was out of favour with the regime long before Furtwangler was? Or must we instruct you in some history of what actually happened? You really are desperately scraping the barrel for arguments aren't you! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> But it is totally fruitless your repeating these tired old arguments again and again. Don't you think they've been done to death?


You keep saying "tired, old arguments," as if there is a consensus that they have been refuted.

The consensus is on my side, not yours.


----------



## brahms4

That`s actually Guido Cantelli,not Karajan in that photo.Cantelli was drafted into the Italian army,but refused to fight alongside the Germans.He was thrown into a labor camp.Not to be confused with Karajan!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You keep saying "tired, old arguments," as if there is a consensus that they have been refuted.
> 
> The consensus is on my side, not yours.


Oh for goodness sake! You talk as if they haven't been trotted out ad infinitum. An argument is tired when everyone has heard it and is bored by it. We have all heard it - from you in this thread for a start! You seem to have a compulsion to repeat things. We know the history. Furtwangler could have left Germany but chose not to and conducted for the Nazis. Whether he was right in doing so is a matter of dispute. Bruno Walter and others thought he was wrong.


----------



## DavidA

brahms4 said:


> That`s actually Guido Cantelli,not Karajan in that photo


Well that illustrates the historical accuracy is this discussion! :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

brahms4 said:


> That`s actually Guido Cantelli,not Karajan in that photo.Cantelli was drafted into the Italian army,but refused to fight alongside the Germans.He was thrown into a labor camp.Not to be confused with Karajan!


New thread: Explain the fascination with Guido Cantelli


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

brahms4 said:


> That`s actually Guido Cantelli,not Karajan in that photo.Cantelli was drafted into the Italian army,but refused to fight alongside the Germans.He was thrown into a labor camp.Not to be confused with Karajan!


You're right. Thanks for catching!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The tired old arguments again. When on earth are you going to pack this nonsense in and concentrate on the music. I'm not surprised as at the turn of the century Firtwangler was a young man. It is called AGEING! Don't you also realise that Karajan was out of favour with the regime long before Furtwangler was? Or must we instruct you in some history of what actually happened? You really are desperately scraping the barrel for arguments aren't you! :lol:


It's amazing how you try to find an argument with everything, even simply having fun with pictures.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's amazing how you try to find an argument with everything, even simply having fun with pictures.


Even when the pictures are wrong? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're right. Thanks for catching!


As captain Maiwaring would say, "I just wondered when anyone was going to notice!" :lol:


----------



## DavidA

brahms4 said:


> That`s actually Guido Cantelli,not Karajan in that photo.Cantelli was drafted into the Italian army,but refused to fight alongside the Germans.He was thrown into a labor camp.Not to be confused with Karajan!


Or Furtwangler!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Enthusiast said:


> I tried to find a cake with a swastika on it but failed.


Here's your swastika cake


----------



## Eclectic Al

I try and ignore the Nazi references on threads like this, because I don't feel I can presume to judge others for their accommodations with the horrors of that period, when I have had such an easy ride (- so far, at least). In the positions of F or HvK or whoever (Bohm?), would I have left (if I could) or carried on or got myself into trouble with the regime or been an active supporter of the regime or what? I don't know, so I can't judge.

I do find the whole "X behaved better than Y during WW2" thing a bit tedious.

However, following a recommendation on this thread I listened to the 1944 Bruckner 8 conducted by F, and at points I couldn't help thinking that while this was being performed so many people were in the camps or being rounded up. I am aware that that is irrational, as horrible things happen all the time, and one has to get on with life, but there it was. I didn't draw any conclusions about the character of Furtwangler or the musicians, and neither would I do that about other musicians active at the time, but I was troubled.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> As captain Maiwaring would say, "I just wondered when anyone was going to notice!" :lol:


I googled "young Karajan" images, and Cantelli came up. So sue me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> I try and ignore the Nazi references on threads like this, because I don't feel I can presume to judge others for their accommodations with the horrors of that period, when I have had such an easy ride (- so far, at least). In the positions of F or HvK or whoever (Bohm?), would I have left (if I could) or carried on or got myself into trouble with the regime or been an active supporter of the regime or what? I don't know, so I can't judge.
> 
> I do find the whole "X behaved better than Y during WW2" thing a bit tedious.
> 
> However, following a recommendation on this thread I listened to the 1944 Bruckner 8 conducted by F, and at points I couldn't help thinking that while this was being performed so many people were in the camps or being rounded up. I am aware that that is irrational, as horrible things happen all the time, and one has to get on with life, but there it was. I didn't draw any conclusions about the character of Furtwangler or the musicians, and neither would I do that about other musicians active at the time, but I was troubled.


The argument from the other side is that those who lived in Austria-Germany and opposed the Nazis were just as helpless - even moreso - as those who were performing Beethoven in New York. In fact they were under more stress and in more actual danger.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The argument from the other side is that those who lived in Austria-Germany and opposed the Nazis were just as helpless - even moreso - as those who were performing Beethoven in New York. In fact they were under more stress and in more actual danger.


I'm sure it's true that getting out was safer. However, as I say, I'm not really judging any of them, as I don't feel I have the right to do so.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The argument from the other side is that those who lived in Austria-Germany and opposed the Nazis were just as helpless - even moreso - as those who were performing Beethoven in New York. In fact they were under more stress and in more actual danger.


Compared to Huberman, Kanppertsbusch, and Kubelik, Furtwangler's moral judgment seem questionable and not beyond criticism (I am aware of the good deeds he did but let's not romanticize him too much). He benefited from the regime for money from broadcasting and power in the music scene. But among the musicians served under the regime, he was leaning on the good side (if not hedging his bets) and was not a Nazi by any means. Mengelberg and Kabasta were enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi and punished for it postwar. Karl Bohm was a Nazi sympathizer and people seem to have no problem with him (which says a lot about his legacy). Let's not forget that Hitler was a big promoter of Wagner and Bruckner and I don't think it's just "appropriation", he clearly loved their music. So Wagner and Bruckner's music also served the Third Reich, should we avoid them because of that? Of course not.

I tend not to be too harsh on artists for their political alignments because of the power dynamics. Artists had choices, true, but they hold very little political power and politics were not their primary concerns. There are far more reprehensible historical figures who held tremendous power that has been mistakenly (and dangerously) revered and praised across the world. History is a messy business.

Anti-Nazi musicians such as Toscanini, Huberman, and Kubelik are worthy of praise for their moral backbones, for sure. But this does not prevent us from appreciating the art of Furtwangler or Cortot, or even Mengelberg and Kabasta, without illusions of their characters. Otherwise, should listeners in the west also avoid musicians who served under the USSR (which in many ways is worse than the Third Reich)?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The thing is Furtwangler did not merely neutrally decide to stay in Germany. He saw himself as a bastion of good in the face of his country being in a state of crisis. He was the head of German music, the guardian of the heritage of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Had he left, he would be leaving that heritage in the hands of evil, not to mention abandoning his people. Whether or not you agree, that was the way _he_ saw it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The thing is Furtwangler did not merely neutrally decide to stay in Germany. He saw himself as a bastion of good in the face of his country being in a state of crisis. He was the head of German music, the guardian of the heritage of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Had he left, he would be leaving that heritage in the hands of evil, not to mention abandoning his people. Whether or not you agree, that was the way _he_ saw it.


Furtwangler's love for German culture needs no explanation. It's all in his music!


----------



## Enthusiast

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's your swastika cake
> View attachment 139868


I think you baked that yourself!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The thing is Furtwangler did not merely neutrally decide to stay in Germany. He saw himself as a bastion of good in the face of his country being in a state of crisis. He was the head of German music, the guardian of the heritage of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. Had he left, he would be leaving that heritage in the hands of evil, not to mention abandoning his people. Whether or not you agree, that was the way _he_ saw it.


Well that is one side of the equation. The other half is that he got a good living in Germany. There are two sides to it


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Well that is one side of the equation. The other half is that he got a good living in Germany. There are two sides to it


There is not a single account of those who knew Furtwängler that he was ever driven by money. Quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore he would have made a good living anywhere in the world. And you accuse others of grasping at straws?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is not a single account of those who knew Furtwängler that he was ever driven by money. Quite the opposite in fact. Furthermore he would have made a good living anywhere in the world. And you accuse others of grasping at straws?


He had a very good living During the Nazi period. Fact!


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is not a single account of those who knew Furtwängler that he was ever driven by money.





DavidA said:


> He had a very good living During the Nazi period.


Since these two statements are not in opposition to each other - both can be true - what are you arguing about?


----------



## JAS

If there are arguments to be made against Furtwangler, I would prefer that they be restricted to musical ones. (Were he an amazing conductor even while being, on personal grounds, the worst person who ever walked the face of the earth, that would be cause enough to be fascinated by him.)


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Since these two statements are not in opposition to each other - both can be true - what are you arguing about?


Absolutely! The idea of Furtwangler living the life of some ascetic is just false.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Since these two statements are not in opposition to each other - both can be true - what are you arguing about?


David is apparently trying to argue that WF was lured into collaboration with the Nazis with money, and my point is that there is no proof that was his motivation and he could have made plenty of money anywhere in the world.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> David is apparently trying to argue that WF was lured into collaboration with the Nazis with money, and my point is that there is no proof that was his motivation and he could have made plenty of money anywhere in the world.


You are making this up. I never said any such thing. Now please learn to read what I actually said instead of reading things in which I didn't say. And please take note of what Mcleod is saying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You are making this up. I never said any such thing. Now please learn to read what I actually said instead of reading things in which I didn't say. And please take note of what Mcleod is saying.


Then I have no idea what your point was. You said Furtwängler's lavish lifestyle was the "other side of the coin" from his efforts to oppose the Nazis and help those in need. I have no idea what one has to do with the other.


----------



## Guest

JAS said:


> If there are arguments to be made against Furtwangler, I would prefer that they be restricted to musical ones. (Were he an amazing conductor even while being, on personal grounds, the worst person who ever walked the face of the earth, that would be cause enough to be fascinated by him.)


I would prefer this too, but it's difficult to treat the 'fascination with WF' without considering his relationship with the Nazis and his conviction that art and politics must remain separate.

https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/politics-and-propaganda/third-reich/furtwangler-wilhelm/


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> I would prefer this too, but it's difficult to treat the 'fascination with WF' without considering his relationship with the Nazis and his conviction that art and politics must remain separate.
> 
> https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/politics-and-propaganda/third-reich/furtwangler-wilhelm/


I think WF's meaning here can be easily misconstrued. I don't believe he meant artists should not have political conviction. I believe he meant that great art should be continued to be made regardless of who is in power. This is why he tried to convince Jewish artists like Huberman and Schnabel to keep performing in Germany. In essence he was saying "Don't let them define us." It was a naive view, perhaps. But it is line with his statement that "There was never a Nazi Germany, only a Germany ruled by Nazis."

He saw himself as independent of the regime, separate, and thus acting in a sort of defiance.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I would prefer this too, but it's difficult to treat the 'fascination with WF' without considering his relationship with the Nazis and his conviction that art and politics must remain separate.
> 
> https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/politics-and-propaganda/third-reich/furtwangler-wilhelm/


That article probably gets it just about right. Of course we must remember that all these guys did was make music. In no way did they participate in the death camps or even bear arms. But of course when you put them by the side of people like Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Movement or Bonhoeffer they are found wanting.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think WF's meaning here can be easily misconstrued. I don't believe he meant artists should not have political conviction. I believe he meant that great art should be continued to be made regardless of who is in power. This is why he tried to convince Jewish artists like Huberman and Schnabel to keep performing in Germany. In essence he was saying "Don't let them define us." It was a naive view, perhaps. But it is line with his statement that "There was never a Nazi Germany, only a Germany ruled by Nazis."
> 
> *He saw himself as independent of the regime, separate, and thus acting in a sort of defiance*.


That is certainly not the view of history, whatever his intentions.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> That is certainly not the view of history, whatever his intentions.


I disagree with this statement


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> I would prefer this too, but it's difficult to treat the 'fascination with WF' without considering his relationship with the Nazis and his conviction that art and politics must remain separate.
> 
> https://holocaustmusic.ort.org/politics-and-propaganda/third-reich/furtwangler-wilhelm/


This video at 32:45 provides further clarification on Furtwangler's stance, whether or not one agrees with it.






It is interesting. I am often accused on this forum of not being clear in my positions. The way I see it, I am very clear and consistent, but my positions are not simple and clear to understand. They are nuanced.

I think this is similar to WF's position in the war. Sure, Toscanini could simply say, "I am against Fascism, and my refusal to perform in Europe demonstrates this clearly." Whereas for Furtwangler, leaving Germany was not a clearcut necessary conclusion of standing against the Nazis. His reasoning was more complex and nuanced than that. The more I read about his position, the more I agree with it.

This really gets us back to the differences in musical philosophy. Clarity conveys strength and confidence. But the other side of the argument is that real life is not always so clear cut. The truth is harder to achieve than that.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> That is certainly not the view of history, whatever his intentions.


You make it sound as though there is only one true, factual 'History'. There isn't. It's obvious that there is more than one interpretation and analysis of the story, and I've only just begun to read about WF.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You make it sound as though there is only one true, factual 'History'. There isn't. It's obvious that there is more than one interpretation and analysis of the story, and I've only just begun to read about WF.


There is only one history. What happened. The historian's job is to interpret the facts.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I disagree with this statement


Of course you do but you have an imbalanced view of the matter. You are trying to make the man into a hero which he was not


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA über alles


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> There is only one history. What happened.


But since we only know 'the history' via what someone else has told us what happened, we are already subject to a 'historian's' version of what happened. There may be a general convergence of interpretation on some aspects of what happened, but since 'what happened' is never just facts, but also the interpretations (cause and effect, motivations, etc) there aren't many convergences. I've used this example before: whilst we can say that "Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939", what we can't say without contradiction is when WW2 started without bringing in the historian's interpretation.



DavidA said:


> The historian's job is to interpret the facts.


Not at all. A historian does not have a job except to tell what they will (they're not a historian if they don't tell a story!)

Facts alone don't get you very far. It may have been a fact that WF continued to work as a conductor under the Nazis, but the nature of that work and the context of it, and the relationship with the Nazis at the time, and his reasoning for staying in Germany etc etc etc are where the real history engages our interest.


----------



## vincula

I've got the feeling you two would actually benefit and enjoy sitting next to each other with a good cup of coffee (medium-roast?) and a nice view. The other tables would of course be amused as well  I do believe your positions are actually not that far away, since both admire the same musician for reasons which musicians must me admire for. Am I wrong? A little turn of the screw tips the balance a bit, but not THAT MUCH, gents.

Let's get sensible for a minute. I know what my convictions are. However, who the hell knows what I would have done at that Devil's crossroad. I really do not want to know. Never ever, if possible. Do you?

Regards,

Vincula

PS. Thank God I can still enjoy Wagner and Bruckner for what it is. *A R T*


----------



## hammeredklavier

vincula said:


> I've got the feeling you two would actually benefit and enjoy sitting next to each other with a good cup of coffee (medium-roast?) and a nice view


and a slice of swastika cake


----------



## annaw

vincula said:


> PS. Thank God I can still enjoy Wagner and Bruckner for what it is. *A R T*


What did Bruckner do? He really has struck me as quite "innocent" and a bit crazy genius who wrote wonderful symphonic music and was thoroughly religious. Despite all his weirdness, I don't think he had any anti-semitic sympathies. The fact that a certain person was fond of his music was out of Bruckner's control. Am I misinformed?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> What did Bruckner do? He really has struck me as quite "innocent" and a bit crazy genius who wrote wonderful symphonic music and was thoroughly religious. Despite all his weirdness, I don't think he even had any anti-semitic sympathies. The fact that a certain person was fond of his music was out of Bruckner's control.


Bruckner is also Hitler's favorite and he apparently did a lot to promote Bruckner (as well as appropriate his music for propaganda).

Let's not forget that Karajan was an actual Nazi member but Furtwangler was not. The point is that Furtwangler's stance was far more nuanced than many of his prominent peers, considering the oppressive situation.

Another irony is that leading conductors of the free world such as Toscanini and Reiner are more tyrannical (in the area where they actually exercise power) in their rehearsal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> What did Bruckner do?


"There's no doubt Anton Bruckner was an oddball, a man with an unhealthy interest in dead bodies and teenage girls." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...onance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Bruckner is also Hitler's favorite and he apparently did a lot to promote Bruckner (as well as appropriate his music for propaganda).
> 
> Let's not forget that Karajan was an actual Nazi member but Furtwangler was not.


That's the certain person I had in mind but I suppose Hitler liked cookies too. It doesn't make them any worse. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bruckner nor Wagner could do absolutely nothing to control who liked their music. As far as I know, Hitler rarely talked about Wagner in an anti-semitic context.


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> "There's no doubt Anton Bruckner was an oddball, a man with an unhealthy interest in dead bodies and teenage girls." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...onance-anton-bruckner-concertgebouw-orchestra


And that was the weirdness I had in mind .


----------



## vincula

annaw said:


> What did Bruckner do? He really has struck me as quite "innocent" and a bit crazy genius who wrote wonderful symphonic music and was thoroughly religious. Despite all his weirdness, I don't think he even had any anti-semitic sympathies. The fact that a certain person was fond of his music was out of Bruckner's control. Am I misinformed?


Due to the thread's context, I was only referring indirectly to the Nazis illicite appropriation of Bruckner's music, that's all. It's to be believed that he was a very humble and shy man.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## annaw

vincula said:


> Due to the thread's context, I was only referring indirectly to the Nazis illicite appropriation of Bruckner's music, that's all. It's to be believed that he was a very humble and shy man.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Thanks for clarification  !


----------



## vincula

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Let's not forget that Karajan was an actual Nazi member but Furtwangler was not. The point is that Furtwangler's stance was far more nuanced than many of his prominent peers, considering the oppressive situation.


More or less could be applied to Karl Böhm and Hans Knappertsbusch.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> That's the certain person I had in mind but I suppose Hitler liked cookies too. It doesn't make them any worse. That's the point I'm trying to make. Bruckner nor Wagner could do absolutely nothing to control who liked their music. As far as I know, Hitler rarely talked about Wagner in an anti-semitic context.


Well, Nazi played Wagner excessively in the concentration camp as a way to declare their Aryan superiority and as a means of torture. Wagner himself was an overt anti-semite (although in a different context apparently) when he opposed Mendelsohn's music. I have no illusion of what Nazi appropriated Wagner for.

That said, I don't think Wagner's opera is antisemitic. It may be very subtle (characters such as Mime and Alberich), I can't tell, I will leave it to the scholars.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> But since we only know 'the history' via what someone else has told us what happened, we are already subject to a 'historian's' version of what happened. There may be a general convergence of interpretation on some aspects of what happened, but since 'what happened' is never just facts, but also the interpretations (cause and effect, motivations, etc) there aren't many convergences. I've used this example before: whilst we can say that "Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939", what we can't say without contradiction is when WW2 started without bringing in the historian's interpretation.
> 
> Not at all. *A historian does not have a job except to tell what they will *(they're not a historian if they don't tell a story!)
> 
> Facts alone don't get you very far. It may have been a fact that WF continued to work as a conductor under the Nazis, but the nature of that work and the context of it, and the relationship with the Nazis at the time, and his reasoning for staying in Germany etc etc etc are where the real history engages our interest.


I can see you're not a historian!


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Well, Nazi played Wagner excessively in the concentration camp as a way to declare their Aryan superiority and as a mean of torture. Wagner himself was an overt anti-semite (although in a different context apparently) when he opposed Mendelsohn's music. I have no illusion what Nazi appropriate Wagner for.
> 
> That said, I don't think Wagner's opera is antisemitic. It may be very subtle (characters such as Mime and Alberich), I can't tell, I will leave it to the scholars.


Again, I don't really care who liked Wagner and where his music was played. Wagner wasn't able to control such a thing and thus he shouldn't be blamed.

Anti-semitism was very different in 19th century compared to what it became in 20th century and I don't think it ever got into his music. His music was more personal and deeper than mere politics. Wagner's music, for me at least, talks about different aspects of human nature, human struggle and development.

Woodduck gave a somewhat more profound evidence against Jewish stereotypes in Wagner's operas. From another thread:

_He said that he would not wish to present a Jewish character onstage (not an admirable attitude, but it is what it is); he said that he loved his villains, referring particularly to Alberich (who is sometimes viewed as an antisemitic symbol of the greedy capitalist); and, according to Cosima, he and Cosima once made a game of assigning races to the characters of the Ring, and they agreed that the Nibelungs belonged to "the yellow races," obviously not a description of Jews (whom, in any case, Wagner did not think of as a "race," much less as "yellow"). Moreover, when he attended an 1881 rehearsal of Siegfried in Berlin in which the dwarf Mime was played by a Jewish singer, Wagner commented, "A Jewish dwarf, but excellent." That is not the remark of a composer who intends that Mime represent a Jew._


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I can see you're not a historian!


Why not try to explain where I am mistaken? Better still, instead of picking out one line and offering a silly quip, you might consider what I wrote as a response to your assertion about history and explain your response to mine.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> Again, I don't care who liked Wagner and where his music was played. Wagner wasn't able to control such a thing and thus he shouldn't be blamed.


I certainly understand why you don't care but I do. While I don't blame Wagner for what happened later and I appreciate the complexity and thematic depth of Wagner and his advocacy for emancipation from (erotic) love, I must always remain cautious and critical of his historical legacy and the seductive power of music (not just for moral reasons but for philosophical reasons too).

It's not hard to find Nazi sympathizers or proto-fascists today fascinated by the music-making of the Third Reich as representing something greater for them. That's just an observation. Of course, this does not mean we, the Wagner fans are all secretly proto-fascists. It all depends on how you read the music. Whether people misunderstood "Wagner" or not is beyond the point, people find what they are looking for in the Meistersinger overture or in Siegfried. Wagner's music is neither "tainted" nor "pure", it's a medium through which many powerful ideas can be effortlessly expressed.

I hope you find this position nuanced which does not take away any enjoyment you are getting from Wagner.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Why not try to explain where I am mistaken? Better still, instead of picking out one line and offering a silly quip, you might consider what I wrote as a response to your assertion about history and explain your response to mine.


Reciting the facts of history is what we do in school. Historians interpret the facts. Why two biographies are never the same. As you say what is of interest is what motivated the man to do what he did, what was the social history behind it and just what influence he had for the regime. That is what I meant. I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet actually!


----------



## DavidA

vincula said:


> More or less could be applied to Karl Böhm and Hans Knappertsbusch.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Bohm actually was the most anti-semitic in his remarks than any of them. Knappersbusch made out he despised the Nazis but took every opportunity of advancing his career under them.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

I like to draw the parallel between Furtwangler and another grandmaster conductor - Evgeny Mravinsky.

Mravinsky served the Soviet throughout his life and Stalin let him have an aristocratic lifestyle, but he was never a party member (which is unthinkable in a communist regime with a powerful position) and he privately rejects the party. Did he do anything in the Great Purge when tens of thousands of people (including musicians) are sent to the Gulag? How could he? Being a lifelong friend of Shostakovich, he understood what Shostakovich went through, and what his music stood for - the Russian people not the Communist party. He is a man with incredible integrity but should one blame him for collaborating with the regime just because he didn't resign his post? I am sure the Russian people will not blame him for preserving the Russian heritage and for establish the Russian school of conducting.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet actually!


I don't think we are. You said:



DavidA said:


> That is certainly not *the view of history*, whatever his intentions.


I replied that I didn't think there is such a thing as 'history' (singular) (post #1530). You reasserted that:



DavidA said:


> There is only one history. What happened. The historian's job is to interpret the facts.


We aren't on the same page, and your suggestion that "Reciting the facts of history is what we do in school" only confirms that my views on history are not the same as yours at all.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I would just repeat previous posts where I note that those of us in far more comfortable situations cannot judge. I cannot judge a concentration camp guard: who knows, if they haven't experienced the situation, what they would have done if given such a posting by the ruling system?

Equally, many people in the past behaved in ways which were seen as acceptable at the time, and are now seen as reprehensible. But, we don't know which aspects of what is acceptable now will seem reprehensible in the future. I can't judge someone in the past, according to current norms, unless I am willing to accept that my behaviour may be judged unacceptable under the (currently unknowable) norms of the future. All I can do is behave in a way which seems decent now; leave the past alone; and hope the future is lenient on us.

Let's just cut everyone a bit of slack.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I certainly understand why you don't care but I do. While I don't blame Wagner for what happened later and I appreciate the complexity and thematic depth of Wagner and his advocacy for emancipation from (erotic) love, I must always remain cautious and critical of his historical legacy and the seductive power of music (not just for moral reasons but for philosophical reasons too).
> 
> It's not hard to find Nazi sympathizers or proto-fascists today fascinated by the music-making of the Third Reich as representing something greater for them. That's just an observation. Of course, this does not mean we, the Wagner fans are all secretly proto-fascists. It all depends on how you read the music. Whether people misunderstood "Wagner" or not is beyond the point, people find what they are looking for in the Meistersinger overture or in Siegfried. Wagner's music is neither "tainted" nor "pure", it's a medium through which many powerful ideas can be effortlessly expressed.
> 
> I hope you find this position nuanced *which does not take away any enjoyment you are getting from Wagner.*


It most certainly does not  ! It rather tends to be the other way around for me - the more I know about Wagner's life, the more I start appreciating his work. A bit paradoxic but I find his personality fascinating and it's interesting to look for ways how it was projected onto his works and how it can be seen in his characters. I also feel certain sympathy towards his rather difficult life. Just to make it clear though, I certainly do not claim that he didn't have anti-semitic views, that he wasn't a bit of an egomaniac or didn't hurt both himself and his friends through his actions.

I think there's a difference between _his_ historical legacy (operas, Bayreuth, letters, essays etc) and the historical legacy connected with Wagner but not created by him. It has been said that the Nazis in general had no special interest towards Wagner, it was rather Hitler's personal thing. I don't think he was thinking of ways to govern the world and destroy the Jews during his teenage years when he became acquainted with Wagner. When he claimed Wagner's operas to be an inspiration for his.. "plans", it sounds more like a propaganda move, not an honest confession. That's at least the feeling and suspicion I have.

Of course Wagner and his art was used for propaganda but I cannot see any reasonable and legitimate justification for that. His legacy was misused as many other things and artists during the 20th century. Seemingly even Furtwängler and Karajan. Anti-semitism was only a small part of Wagner's ideas, not a major one as people sometimes think. First and foremost, he was an artist. I don't think that reading something into a work is beyond the point because that's the main problem with Wagner that's enhanced by that one stupid essay. That one infamous essay is probably the reason why we have a problem with Wagner and not to that extent with Bruckner or Lehar, whom Hitler also liked. Had Hitler liked Verdi since childhood, maybe we would see _Il Trovatore_ full of Jewish stereotypes. Almost anything could be read into such works as modern productions often effectively prove *frustrated*...


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I don't think we are. You said:
> 
> I replied that I didn't think there is such a thing as 'history' (singular) (post #1530). You reasserted that:
> 
> We aren't on the same page, and your suggestion that "Reciting the facts of history is what we do in school" only confirms that my views on history are not the same as yours at all.


Well in that case you contradicted yourself on your previous post. Unless you didn't read my post properly. I gave up reciting the facts of history when I was at school. In fact I got beyond it when I was at school


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> I would just repeat previous posts where I note that those of us in far more comfortable situations cannot judge.* I cannot judge a concentration camp guard:* who knows, if they haven't experienced the situation, what they would have done if given such a posting by the ruling system?
> 
> Equally, many people in the past behaved in ways which were seen as acceptable at the time, and are now seen as reprehensible. But, we don't know which aspects of what is acceptable now will seem reprehensible in the future. I can't judge someone in the past, according to current norms, unless I am willing to accept that my behaviour may be judged unacceptable under the (currently unknowable) norms of the future. All I can do is behave in a way which seems decent now; leave the past alone; and hope the future is lenient on us.
> 
> Let's just cut everyone a bit of slack.


We can judge them alright. Just read a book like Corrie ten Booms The Hiding Place. The sheer unadulterated wickedness of these people is hard to fathom. It is very easy to judge. What is difficult is to forgive. Corrie deals with this in her book


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well in that case you contradicted yourself on your previous post. Unless you didn't read my post properly. I gave up reciting the facts of history when I was at school. In fact I got beyond it when I was at school


I'm sorry. Where did I contradict myself?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I'm sorry. Where did I contradict myself?


Well first of all you are saying that is the historians job to tell the facts and then you go on to say that there is more to it than the facts


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

I don't feel comfortable at all, not being able to judge Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and Goebbel. I am sure they have their perspectives and their reasons (and "good" ones, that's why they came into power), but that does not imply they can't be judged. Historical figures are to be judged because otherwise we can't learn from history and making better judgments going forward.

Judgement is difficult, and that's why there is debate.

I do agree that musicians should have more leeways because they have little political power. They are at worst tools for the authoritarian regimes. But that doesn't make them beyond criticisms based on factual evidence.

From what I read, Furtwangler seems to be less reprehensible than Karajan and Bohm. You can read Furtwangler as a kind of hero but Karajan was an opportunist at best.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I don't feel comfortable at all, not being able to judge Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and Goebbel. I am sure they have their perspectives and their reasons (and "good" ones, that's why they came into power), but that does not imply they can't be judged. Historical figures are to be judged because otherwise we can't learn from history and making better judgments going forward.
> 
> Judgement is difficult, and that's why there is debate.
> 
> I do agree that musicians should have more leeways because they have little political power. They are at worst tools for the authoritarian regimes. But that doesn't make them beyond criticisms based on factual evidence.
> 
> From what I read, Furtwangler seems to be less reprehensible than Karajan and Bohm. You can read Furtwangler as a kind of hero but Karajan was an opportunist at best.


The Nazi regime was one of unparalleled wickedness. It led to 50 million deaths. The musicians of course are not beyond criticism but unfortunately in their zeal to prosecute musicians the allied authorities allowed most of the real villains who had committed atrocious crimes to get away. Very few of the Nazi war criminals were actually brought to justice. The conductors mentioned we're certainly not heroes in the slightest but used as puppets of the regime. Their willingness in doing this is a matter of opinion but then the people who played end of them were equally used. But the musicians were small fry by the scale of those who committed the most horrendous crimes against humanity and who got away scot-free


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Well first of all you are saying that is the historians job to tell the facts


I didn't say that. Please quote the post if you think I am mistaken.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I didn't say that. Please quote the post if you think I am mistaken.


1534 Where are you say facts alone don't get you very far. I'm in agreement with that. But then you say that it's just a historian's job to tell the facts. A historian goes beyond the facts to interpret them. Weather of course he interprets them the right way he is a matter of opinion and that is why there is controversy


----------



## Eclectic Al

I think my previous post was, perhaps, misinterpreted. I am quite willing to condemn, from a human perspective, the actions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao as ethically appalling. What I am less willing to do, from my smug vantage point, is claim a right to judge people thrust into an appalling situation along the lines of Furtwangler B+, Karajan B-, Bohm C. Where did I earn the right to do so? Are we back in the 6th form?

Obviously, I'm sure that if I had been German in WW2 I would have been sheltering Jews in my attic, because I'm heroic.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> 1534 Where are you say facts alone don't get you very far. I'm in agreement with that. But then you say that it's just a historian's job to tell the facts. A historian goes beyond the facts to interpret them. Weather of course he interprets them the right way he is a matter of opinion and that is why there is controversy


I have reread that post and I believe you are mistaken. I did NOT say that the historian's job is to tell the facts. Actually, I said that a historian does not have 'a job' "but to tell what they will."


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> The Nazi regime was one of unparalleled wickedness. It led to 50 million deaths. The musicians of course are not beyond criticism but unfortunately in their zeal to prosecute musicians the allied authorities allowed most of the real villains who had committed atrocious crimes to get away. Very few of the Nazi war criminals were actually brought to justice. The conductors mentioned we're certainly not heroes in the slightest but used as puppets of the regime. Their willingness in doing this is a matter of opinion but then the people who played end of them are equally guilty


What you said is certainly fair and I admire your firm moral stand. I am leaning on your side about this one.

But "good vs evil" is not how I approach these issues. It does not explain the blindness toward atrocities that is still prevalent to this day. It also does not explain why "evil" emerges from "good" or why "good" people side with "evil". I am far less worried about scrutinizing and condemning Nazi than other less visible "evils".

Artists shouldn't be the focus unless they are open supporters or propagandist. Artists have always been "parasitic" to power, whether it's the Nazi or the Soviet or Global capital. Ironically, in the one area in which conductors can exercise power, Furtwangler is also fairly generous, as opposed to Toscanini or Reiner.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I have reread that post and I believe you are mistaken. I did NOT say that the historian's job is to tell the facts. Actually, I said that a historian does not have 'a job' "but to tell what they will."


It was in the reply to my point that:

'The historian's job is to interpret the facts.'
You said:
'Not at all.' By that I thought you were contradicting my statement. Anyway we are agreed on the fact that it is a historian's job to interpret the facts as well as tell them?


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What you said is certainly fair and I admire your firm moral stand. I am leaning on your side about this one.
> 
> But "good vs evil" is not how I approach these issues. It does not explain the blindness toward atrocities that is still prevalent to this day. It also does not explain why "evil" emerges from "good" or why "good" people side with "evil". I am far less worried about scrutinizing and condemning Nazi than other less visible "evils".
> 
> Artists shouldn't be the focus unless they are open supporters or propagandist. Artists have always been "parasitic" to power, whether it's the Nazi or the Soviet or Global capital. Ironically, in the one area in which conductors can exercise power, Furtwangler is also fairly generous, as opposed to Toscanini or Reiner.


How on earth was Furtwangler generous? He never appears that way to me. Apart from in his favours to young women.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> It was in the reply to my point that:
> 
> 'The historian's job is to interpret the facts.'
> You said:
> 'Not at all.' By that I thought you were contradicting my statement. Anyway we are agreed on the fact that it is a historian's job to interpret the facts as well as tell them?


Thanks for your apology for misquoting me.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> What I am less willing to do, from my smug vantage point, is claim a right to judge people thrust into an appalling situation along the lines of Furtwangler B+, Karajan B-, Bohm C. Where did I earn the right to do so? Are we back in the 6th form?


It's called the 1st amendment here in the US. You have legal rights to freely express judgments on historical figures. You don't need to earn it. I believe this right is written in constitutions of many countries.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> How on earth was Furtwangler generous? He never appears that way to me. Apart from in his favours to young women.


I was referring to how he treats musicians in BPO/VPO.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's called the 1st amendment here in the US. You have legal rights to freely express judgments on historical figures. You don't need to earn it. I believe this right is written in constitutions of many countries.


What an irrelevant remark. That concerns a constitutional right to express judgements. I am wholly supportive of constitutions allowing people to express opinions - and it is the tendency now arising for people to be "cancelled" for expressing opinions which is the scariest thing I have experienced in my life. I suppose that indicates how privileged I have been.

However, having a constitutional right to express personal judgements is not the same thing as having any sort of moral right to judge others. I suppose I am willing to accept that given the choice of being a guard in a concentration camp or being sent to the Eastern front (or shot) I don't have a clue what I would have done. My sense of my own heroic character is less sure than that.

Feel free to claim the moral high ground. I continue with my right to suggest that that is a bit smug. After all, the US constitution (which does not hold where I live) permits it - which is after all the key point.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> What an irrelevant remark. That concerns a constitutional right to express judgements. I am wholly supportive of constitutions allowing people to express opinions - and it is the tendency now arising for people to be "cancelled" by expressing opinions which is the scariest thing I have experienced in my life.
> 
> However, having a constitutional right to express personal judgements is not the same thing as having any sort of moral right to judge others. I suppose I am willing to accept that given the choice of being a guard in a concentration camp or being sent to the Eastern front (or shot) I don't have a clue what I would have done. My sense of my own heroic character is less sure than that.
> 
> Feel free to claim the moral high ground. I continue with my right to suggest that that is a bit smug.


Rights, as far as I understand, is a legal concept, not a moral concept. You don't need "moral right" (I don't know what it is) to take a moral stand if that's what concerns you.

Your empathy toward people on the losing side with limited choices is a noble one. But that's not the discussion here. We are not discussing guard at the concentration camps. The great conductors were influential public figures and they must be held accountable for taking advantage of their affinity to the Nazi regime, and rightly so.

Some people are more willing to take a moral stand than others, that's why we praise musicians such as Toscanini, Huberman, and Kubelik for their firm denouncement and rejection of Nazism and Fascism. If that's moral high ground, I don't see what's wrong with it.

If one is amoral or an extreme relativist, then why should one even care about the high ground or low ground? Any moral judgment is equally meaningless to him/her.


----------



## Eclectic Al

At some point in this thread someone had to say it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I'm not sure that some of the arch-antagonists here would agree with that (and I am pretty sure many active pressure groups on Twitter would not). Whatever happened to the enlightenment?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> At some point in this thread someone had to say it: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> 
> I'm not sure that some of the arch-antagonists here would agree with that (and I am pretty sure many active pressure groups on Twitter would not). Whatever happened to the enlightenment?


That Voltaire's quote is unnecessary. No one is infringing on other's right to free speech. Only the moderators have the right to ban forum members (and we agreed to such an arrangement when we registered to this forum). There is nothing to defend to death.

You are confusing arguments, counter-arguments, or even ad hom attacks as infringements of your right to free speech. They are not. It's fair to say that the conversations and discussions on this forum is much more civil and "enlightened" than elsewhere.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Rights, as far as I understand, is a legal concept, not a moral concept. You don't need "moral right" (I don't know what it is) to take a moral stand if that's what concerns you.
> 
> Your empathy toward people on the losing side with limited choices is a noble one. But that's not the discussion here. We are not discussing guard at the concentration camps. The great conductors were influential public figures and they must be held accountable for taking advantage of their affinity to the Nazi regime, and rightly so.
> 
> Some people are more willing to take a moral stand than others, that's why we praise musicians such as Toscanini, Huberman, and Kubelik for their firm denouncement and rejection of Nazism and Fascism. If that's moral high ground, I don't see what's wrong with it.
> 
> If one is amoral or an extreme relativist, then why should one even care about the high ground or low ground? Any moral judgment is equally meaningless to him/her.


We're in danger of drifting off topic here - if anyone can remember what the topic is.

I sort of agree with you, in the sense that I have no interest in rights at all, except as some sort of administrative description of the way a legal system is required to deal with you.

From a moral perspective I am interested in obligations, not rights. I view me having "a right" as an emergent property which is the result of other moral agents having obligations. Focusing on rights is passive, in the sense that by expressing a right you are putting it in the hands of others to look after you, essentially you are defining yourself as lacking agency; focusing on obligations is active, as I end up with a requirement, as a moral agent to treat you well (or badly, if I have some sort of perverse world view). A society which focuses on the obligations we owe to each other is an adult society; a society which focuses on the rights which members have is a dictatorial one (even if it might be a benign dictatorship, a parent-child situation).

Hence, what I really mean to say is that if I am going to judge others, I feel I have an obligation to consider how I might have behaved in their situation, or how a reasonable (non-heroic) person might have behaved. I don't feel that it is reasonable to expect heroism from people. I hope that if I had been landed with the job of a concentration camp guard I would not have been one of the worst, but I cannot be sure that I would have chosen the Eastern front instead. I have read my Primo Levi, and the moral ambiguities of life in such camps are not lost on me.

If you now turn to F versus HvK versus Bohm versus Jochum, if I was being honest, I am not interested enough to devote the months of study that I think it would demand to feel that I could rank them in terms of their moral standing, nor am I sure what the point would be, and I am certain it is not something that would relate much to whether I thought their performance of the Eroica was excellent or not.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That Voltaire's quote is unnecessary. No one is infringing on other's right to free speech. Only the moderators have the right to ban forum members (and we agreed to such an arrangement when we registered to this forum). There is nothing to defend to death.
> 
> You are confusing arguments, counter-arguments, or even ad hom attacks as infringements of your right to free speech. They are not. It's fair to say that the conversations and discussions on this forum is much more civil and "enlightened" than elsewhere.


I think you're missing my point, so I've liked your post.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Well, Nazi played Wagner excessively in the concentration camp as a way to declare their Aryan superiority and as a means of torture. Wagner himself was an overt anti-semite (although in a different context apparently) when he opposed Mendelsohn's music. I have no illusion of what Nazi appropriated Wagner for.
> 
> That said, I don't think Wagner's opera is antisemitic. It may be very subtle (characters such as Mime and Alberich), I can't tell, I will leave it to the scholars.


I hate to have to repeat this (apologies to all who've followed previous discussions on the subject), but your statements here are second- and third-hand "information," and we need to be careful about repeating what we read, especially when it concerns the Nazi era, Wagner, and attempts to associate the two.

Concentration camp survivors have been asked about the music played in the camps, and they do not confirm the notion that Wagner's music was played. Music was an important part of life at the camps, but it generally took the form of lighter fare. Even in formal concerts by camp orchestras, Wagner hardly figures; the emphasis was on bright, tuneful, popular classics by composers such as Grieg, Verdi, Mozart and Johann Strauss. SS guards needed music to relax, and wouldn't have wanted to hear that "heavy stuff" at the end of a day.

Wagnerian opera was Hitler's personal obsession, and not in any large sense a "Nazi thing"; most of the rank and file were bored stiff by what to them were excessively long evenings of tedious, mythical mumbo-jumbo which communicated to them no messages of "Aryan superiority." Impressions of a general Nazi "appropriation" of Wagner are mostly illusory, but are fostered constantly in popular media and, alas, classical music forums. Thus we recently had one member here describe Wagner as the "theme music of the Third Reich," which I'm sure he read somewhere. It's pure nonsense, fostered by cable TV documentaries.

Regarding antisemitism in Wagner's operas, the evidence offered for it is quite flimsy and easily challenged, which hasn't stopped some people from running with it and contriving bizarre theories. I'm happy to see that you express doubts. The pros and cons have been discussed several times on TC, so I won't go into them here.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Thanks for the clarification about "obligation". Are you interested in "moral obligation" or "legal obligation"?



Eclectic Al said:


> What I really mean to say is that if I am going to judge others, I feel I have an obligation to consider how I might have behaved in their situation, or how a reasonable (non-heroic) person might have behaved.


If you think you have an obligation to be empathetic when you judging historical figures, then more power to you. It is not necessary. It is sophisticated to put yourself in the shoes of Mao in order to judge Mao (if such a thing is remotely possible in the first place). But people don't need to be empathetic to Mao to know that Mao did plenty of bad things to secure his power. One could also argue that it's the wrong approach because the closer you are to his situation and rationale, the less you will be critical of him. The point of criticism is precisely to reject the situation and rationales that give rise to Mao's decisions.



Eclectic Al said:


> A society which focuses on the obligations we owe to each other is an adult society; a society which focuses on the rights which members have is a dictatorial one (even if it might be a benign dictatorship, a parent-child situation).


What do you mean by "focus"? Most of the legal obligations and rights are written in the form Constitution of almost every modern nation. Are you saying that society focuses on human rights is a paternalistic/dictatorial one? Do you understand the idea of rights and what role it serves after the enlightenment? Do you know that in absolute monarch and today's authoritarian regimes there is no de-facto civil rights? What is an "adult society"?



Eclectic Al said:


> If you now turn to F versus HvK versus Bohm versus Jochum, if I was being honest, I am not interested enough to devote the months of study that I think it would demand to feel that I could rank them in terms of their moral standing, nor am I sure what the point would be, and I am certain it is not something that would relate much to whether I thought their performance of the Eroica was excellent or not.


Yes, you are clearly not interested in this pretty old debate.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I hate to have to repeat this (apologies to all who've followed previous discussions on the subject), but your statements here are second- and third-hand "information," and we need to be careful about repeating what we read, especially when it concerns the Nazi era, Wagner, and attempts to associate the two.
> 
> Concentration camp survivors have been asked about the music played in the camps, and they do not confirm the notion that Wagner's music was played. Music was an important part of life at the camps, but it generally took the form of lighter fare. Even in formal concerts by camp orchestras, Wagner hardly figures; the emphasis was on bright, tuneful, popular classics by composers such as Grieg, Verdi, Mozart and Johann Strauss. SS guards needed music to relax, and wouldn't have wanted to hear that "heavy stuff" at the end of a day.
> 
> Wagnerian opera was Hitler's personal obsession, and not in any large sense a "Nazi thing"; most of the rank and file were bored stiff by what to them were excessively long evenings of tedious, mythical mumbo-jumbo which communicated to them no messages of "Aryan superiority." Impressions of a general Nazi "appropriation" of Wagner are mostly illusory, but are fostered constantly in popular media and, alas, classical music forums. Thus we recently had one member here describe Wagner as the "theme music of the Third Reich," which I'm sure he read somewhere. It's pure nonsense, fostered by cable TV documentaries.
> 
> Regarding antisemitism in Wagner's operas, the evidence offered for it is quite flimsy and easily challenged, which hasn't stopped some people from running with it and contriving bizarre theories. I'm happy to see that you express doubts. The pros and cons have been discussed several times on TC, so I won't go into them here.


Thanks for enlightening me. This second-hand and third-hand anti-Wagner propaganda sure is an effective one and worth some investigation. It seems ironic to me how the "popular media" of the free world reinforced this ghastly association that they accused the Nazi for.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thanks for the clarification about "obligation". Are you interested in "moral obligation" or "legal obligation"?
> 
> The point of criticism is precisely to reject the situation and rationales that give rise to Mao's decisions.
> 
> What do you mean by "focus"? Most of the legal obligations and rights are written in the form Constitution of almost every modern nation. Are you saying that society focuses on human rights is a paternalistic/dictatorial one? Do you understand the idea of rights and what role it serves after the enlightenment? Do you know that in absolute monarch and today's authoritarian regimes there is no de-facto civil rights? What is an "adult society"?


Wow. I can't agree that "the point of criticism is precisely to reject the situation and rationales that gave rise to Mao's decisions." If I was intending to make any strong statement about Mao I would certainly feel an obligation to seek to understand Mao's situation and why he did what he did. As a casual bystander I can say what I like, but if I wanted to say anything about Mao that had substance I would want to probe. I don't know enough about the situation to expect to be taken seriously as a commentator on Maoist China.

On your second quoted paragraph, you keep going back to legal systems. I am trying to talk about morality. It's certainly nice if legal systems have some sort of relationship to morality, and I think I made it clear that I understood that rights were a convenient concept in terms of discussing how a legal system might relate to an individual's situation. However, I was talking about an ethical basis for how people might relate to each other as equals respecting each other's autonomy, not a legal system, which is a grubbier matter entirely.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Wow. I can't agree that "the point of criticism is precisely to reject the situation and rationales that gave rise to Mao's decisions." If I was intending to make any strong statement about Mao I would certainly feel an obligation to seek to understand Mao's situation and why he did what he did. As a casual bystander I can say what I like, but if I wanted to say anything about Mao that had substance I would want to probe. I don't know enough about the situation to expect to be taken seriously as a commentator on Maoist China.
> 
> On your second quoted paragraph, you keep going back to legal systems. I am trying to talk about morality. It's certainly nice if legal systems have some sort of relationship to morality, and I think I made it clear that I understood that rights were a convenient concept in terms of discussing how a legal system might relate to an individual's situation. However, I was talking about an ethical basis for how people might relate to each other as equals respecting each other's autonomy, not a legal system, which is a grubbier matter entirely.


You brought up "rights" all the time. You were quoting Voltaire, lamenting the fade of enlightenment value, associating "rights" with "dictatorial society". I have to point out that rights are not just "convenient concepts", they exist in practice, you are exercising it all the time. They are the bedrock of modern society.

If you are a moralist who advocates empathy, then great.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> Wow. I can't agree that "the point of criticism is precisely to reject the situation and rationales that gave rise to Mao's decisions." If I was intending to make any strong statement about Mao I would certainly feel an obligation to seek to understand Mao's situation and why he did what he did. As a casual bystander I can say what I like, but if I wanted to say anything about Mao that had substance I would want to probe. I don't know enough about the situation to expect to be taken seriously as a commentator on Maoist China.
> 
> On your second quoted paragraph, you keep going back to legal systems. I am trying to talk about morality. It's certainly nice if legal systems have some sort of relationship to morality, and I think I made it clear that I understood that rights were a convenient concept in terms of discussing how a legal system might relate to an individual's situation. However, I was talking about an ethical basis for how people might relate to each other as equals respecting each other's autonomy, not a legal system, which is a grubbier matter entirely.


In the book I have on my shelf about Mao (written by a Chinese) he was a man who believed that everybody in the world was born to do exactly what he wanted and the 100 million deaths he caused (in peacetime) during his regime were totally valid as they served his cause. The man was possibly an even greater monster than Hitler or Stalin.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> However, having a constitutional right to express personal judgements is not the same thing as having any sort of moral right to judge others. I suppose I am willing to accept that given the choice of being a guard in a concentration camp or being sent to the Eastern front (or shot) I don't have a clue what I would have done. My sense of my own heroic character is less sure than that.


Your point, Al, is an entirely valid one, but pragmatically, it's not unreasonable to 'judge' (perhaps not quite the right word) the more extreme examples of good/bad behaviour, otherwise we end up having silly conversations about history's worst dictators.

Why not return the conversation to Furtwangler, and whether, as with the mixed views about Schostakovich, part of the fascination arises as a result of their relationships with their respective ruling tyrannies?


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> We're in danger of drifting off topic here - if anyone can remember what the topic is.
> 
> I sort of agree with you, in the sense that I have no interest in rights at all, except as some sort of administrative description of the way a legal system is required to deal with you.
> 
> From a moral perspective I am interested in obligations, not rights. I view me having "a right" as an emergent property which is the result of other moral agents having obligations. Focusing on rights is passive, in the sense that by expressing a right you are putting it in the hands of others to look after you, essentially you are defining yourself as lacking agency; focusing on obligations is active, as I end up with a requirement, as a moral agent to treat you well (or badly, if I have some sort of perverse world view). A society which focuses on the obligations we owe to each other is an adult society; a society which focuses on the rights which members have is a dictatorial one (even if it might be a benign dictatorship, a parent-child situation).
> 
> Hence, what I really mean to say is that if I am going to judge others, I feel I have an obligation to consider how I might have behaved in their situation, or how a reasonable (non-heroic) person might have behaved. I don't feel that it is reasonable to expect heroism from people.* I hope that if I had been landed with the job of a concentration camp guard I would not have been one of the worst, but I cannot be sure that I would have chosen the Eastern front instead. * I have read my Primo Levi, and the moral ambiguities of life in such camps are not lost on me.
> 
> If you now turn to F versus HvK versus Bohm versus Jochum, if I was being honest, I am not interested enough to devote the months of study that I think it would demand to feel that I could rank them in terms of their moral standing, nor am I sure what the point would be, and I am certain it is not something that would relate much to whether I thought their performance of the Eroica was excellent or not.


The point is that as guards many behaved the the utmost depravity towards the prisoners


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> In the book I have on my shelf about Mao (written by a Chinese) he was a man who believed that everybody in the world was born to do exactly what he wanted and the 100 million deaths he caused (in peacetime) during his regime were totally valid as they served his cause. The man was possibly an even greater monster than Hitler or Stalin.


The more you know about Mao, the less you want to be empathetic. The members of the intelligentsia who sang praise to him was understandable (under the pressure) but also rightly despised because there were those who took a firm stand against him and suffered horrific fates.

Pianist such as Fu'Tsong (who beat Askenazy in Chopin competition, plays wonderful Mazurka), who reneged to the West is not a hero either, because he doomed his father (who committed suicide) at home by committing treason. The situation for artists in these authoritarian regimes are certainly complicated.

I am more willing to giving "silent collaborators" a pass, it's their home nation after all. It is unfortunate that they have to serve the power that they privately despise. It is important that they don't cross a line and remain as passive as possible.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The more you know about Mao, the less you want to be empathetic. The members of the intelligentsia who sang praise to him was understandable (under the pressure) but also rightly despised because there were those who took a firm stand against him and suffered horrific fates.
> 
> Pianist such as Fu'Tsong (who beat Askenazy in Chopin competition, plays wonderful Mazurka), who reneged to the West is not a hero either, because he doomed his father (who committed suicide) at home by committing treason. The situation for artists in these authoritarian regimes are certainly complicated.


It was the idiots in the so-called intelligentsia in the West who gave me problems- some of the left wingers (I was at university at the time) from staff and students (middle class of course) singing Mao's praises while he was slaughtering thousands. Going round clutching his 'little red book' thinking they were being radical while the man himself was one of the greatest monsters ever.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> It was the idiots in the so-called intelligentsia in the West who gave me problems- some of the left wingers (I was at university at the time) from staff and students (middle class of course) singing Mao's praises while he was slaughtering thousands. Going round clutching his 'little red book' thinking they were being radical while the man himself was one of the greatest monsters ever.


I understand your fury and the left in the west during the 70s was certainly misguided and had rosy illusions about the whole situation about Mao (for reasons that are also understandable to a certain degree). Mao had many "great" ideas and was good at projecting charisma but ultimately he was a masterful Machiavellian. This is an interesting topic but we are digressing.

I do think when the time comes, being firm about "good vs evil" is important, as history has taught us. But when we look back, shades of grey often leads to important insights. Calling Hitler and Stalin monsters do not explain why the West descended into such madness from a seemingly golden age in the first place. Musicians are definitely not the first in line to blame.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> The point is that as guards many behaved the the utmost depravity towards the prisoners


I am sure it is true that there was a spectrum of behaviour among guards, for a whole range of reasons. As I mentioned earlier, I have read my Primo Levi. And by the way, I am not defending concentration camp guards!


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The more you know about Mao, the less you want to be empathetic. The members of the intelligentsia who sang praise to him was understandable (under the pressure) but also rightly despised because there were those who took a firm stand against him and suffered horrific fates.
> 
> Pianist such as Fu'Tsong (who beat Askenazy in Chopin competition, plays wonderful Mazurka), who reneged to the West is not a hero either, because he doomed his father (who committed suicide) at home by committing treason. The situation for artists in these authoritarian regimes are certainly complicated.
> 
> I am more willing to giving "silent collaborators" a pass, it's their home nation after all. It is unfortunate that they have to serve the power that they privately despise. It is important that they don't cross a line and remain as passive as possible.


I agree with the above in general. I only have two relevant points: one is that I don't think it's always clear whether a regime is authoritarian or not (- hence my concern with the direction of travel in relation to cancel culture) and the second is that in relation to those regimes of the past I don't feel in a place to judge where the line that you refer to would be.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I do think when the time comes, being firm about "good vs evil" is important, as history has taught us. But when we look back, shades of grey often leads to important insights. Calling Hitler and Stalin monsters do not explain why the West descended into such madness from a seemingly golden age in the first place. Musicians are definitely not the first in line to blame.


But they may be among the easiest. While we point the finger at 'collaborating artists', we still maintain diplomatic and economic relations with dubious regimes (and that's before we consider the conduct of our own governments). History might have 'taught us', but I'm not convinced we've yet learned.

Grey is such a difficult colour to discern.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I am sure it is true that there was a spectrum of behaviour among guards, for a whole range of reasons. As I mentioned earlier, I have read my Primo Levi. And by the way, I am not defending concentration camp guards!


It's OK to be empathetic and critical at the same time. The corruption of the ordinary people is not entirely their fault as we are now aware of the Lucifer effect. The German people also suffered greatly, so did the Japenese. The Allies had committed large scale war crimes to civilians as well.

That's why all people in the place of power should always be held accountable. The least we can do is to be aware of their behaviors.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> But they may be among the easiest. While we point the finger at 'collaborating artists', we still maintain diplomatic and economic relations with dubious regimes (and that's before we consider the conduct of our own governments). History might have 'taught us', but I'm not convinced we've yet learned.
> 
> Grey is such a difficult colour to discern.


I understand exactly what you are saying. That's why I say I would give a pass to "silent collaborators" who remained as passive as possible. There is only so much moral responsibility one can take, especially when one does not hold power.

Hypocrisy is less of sin than being completely ignorant (the banality of evil). As La Rochefoucauld put it, "Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue". Being hypocritical is the first step, in my view.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I understand your fury and the left in the west during the 70s was certainly misguided and had rosy illusions about the whole situation about Mao (for reasons that are also understandable to a certain degree). Mao had many "great" ideas and was good at projecting charisma but ultimately he was a masterful Machiavellian. This is an interesting topic but we are digressing.
> 
> I do think when the time comes, being firm about "good vs evil" is important, as history has taught us. But when we look back, shades of grey often leads to important insights. Calling Hitler and Stalin monsters do not explain why the West descended into such madness from a seemingly golden age in the first place. Musicians are definitely not the first in line to blame.


Golden age? What golden age? There was no golden age!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Golden age? What golden age? There was no golden age!


I would call the pre WWI period a Western Golden Age.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I agree with the above in general. I only have two relevant points: one is that I don't think it's always clear whether a regime is authoritarian or not (- hence my concern with the direction of travel in relation to cancel culture) and the second is that in relation to those regimes of the past I don't feel in a place to judge where the line that you refer to would be.


I think it's pretty easy to tell whether a regime is authoritarian or not by checking to what extent civil rights are protected and to what extent people can decide public affairs.

"Cancel culture" is not institutionalized or legalized, it's decentralized, grassroots (or populist) phenomena. There are some fundamental problems with privacy, data ownership, and the rights not to be publically shamed which I am aware of but I am not an expert of. This goes back to the idea of the internet as "fifth power", proposed by Ignacio Ramonet. It's a feature of empowered civil society, not authoritarianism. Whether or not this evolves into a form of mob rule is another question.

Knowing where to draw the line is about exercising moral judgment which needs to be practiced, in my opinion. I don't see why we should be shy away from it. I don't think civil society can function properly without knowing where to draw the line. Are people so sensitive right now that historical figures cannot be judged?


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I would call the pre WWI period a Western Golden Age.


Only if you look on it with rose coloured spectacles


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Only if you look on it with rose coloured spectacles


Last time I checked, my spectacles were pretty rosy.

I know what you are talking about. Every Golden age has a dark side.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Last time I checked, my spectacles were pretty rosy.
> 
> I know what you are talking about. Every Golden age has a dark side.


Well it may have been a golden age for a few but it was pretty rough for most people.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> It was the idiots in the so-called intelligentsia in the West who gave me problems- some of the left wingers (I was at university at the time) from staff and students (middle class of course) singing Mao's praises while he was slaughtering thousands. Going round clutching his 'little red book' thinking they were being radical while the man himself was one of the greatest monsters ever.


After having been seen as the crypto-Maoist in this thread, I should just note that I agree entirely with this post. Hence my remarks about cancel culture (as it is the same people who are now seeking to silence other opinions to their own), and hence my post about the (mis-attributed) Voltaire quote and the enlightenment (as those same people now seem to be happy not to defend those who disagree with them, and indeed now actively work to silence them).

Trying to get back to Furtwangler, though, one of the things I find fascinating about people who find Furtwangler fascinating is their interest in digging over the details of his relationship with the 3rd Reich (and comparing it with the relationships of others). As far as I can tell these musical people were faced with an appalling situation and made their own evolving judgements about how to behave - maybe at some points they thought their own past behaviour was misjudged and regrettable. Unless one is an academic studying the issues, I don't see what is added by trying to rank them on some sort of purity score from our privileged vantage point.

By the way, few musical works move me because of historical context. Maybe some Shostakovich does, but the piece that definitely does is Strauss' Metamorphosen. That is such a lament, and I don't want to know exactly what Strauss was lamenting (- I would positively seek to avoid hearing about any letters he wrote explaining it, or his relationship with the regime). What matters to me about that piece is how it makes me feel. For me it conjures up thoughts of a great cultural heritage (that of the Austro/German world) which has been brought to destruction. I can imagine the internal conflict of looking at the destruction that you can see (of architectural gems, of moral standards, of lives) and at the same time feeling that the horrors can be traced back to trends in thinking from within the same culture (anti-semitism, Hegel, Marx, Nietsche, Heidegger). But at the same time, I can imagine anything that I might lament, precisely because the music abstracts the feelings from any particular context - which is what great art does.

Suppose, and I am not saying that it was, but suppose that a lot of the lament in Metamorphosen arose from Strauss lamenting that Germany lost the war. I would still think it is a beautiful work, even though I have absolutely no fellow-feeling with the idea that Germany winning the war would have been desirable. Hence, I don't really want to probe the inner feelings of Strauss in composing it. Similarly, I don't really want to know what Beethoven thought about Napoleon: for me that sort of information is not helpful, nor even neutral, in appreciating the Eroica; it is negative, because it removes abstraction from the work and sullies it with tawdry tittle-tattle. This is where I have some sympathy with Toscanini's allegro con brio point: if you impose on me some factual stuff about the role of Napoleon in Beethoven's creation of the Eroica, then I would (politely) rather not know. I don't really mind whether your allegro con brio is a bit faster than my idea or a bit slower (if you can convince me that your performance hangs together in its own terms), but I do think (1) if there is no sense of allegro con brio in your performance then it is a different piece of music from Beethoven's (- perhaps it is better, though?) and (2) Napoleon is neither here nor there in my appreciation of the piece.

In contrast, Cabaret is a great musical, but it is very much set in a specific context, and I think attempts to abstract from that and claim that Cabaret says much about any other rising tyranny are fanciful, or anything else.

Hence: Cabaret - excellent thought-provoking entertainment; Metamorphosen - great art. And don't tell me what Strauss was thinking when he wrote it.

Addendum: VW Symphony 3 moves me because of the 1st world war context.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I think it's pretty easy to tell whether a regime is authoritarian or not by checking to what extent civil rights are protected and to what extent people can decide public affairs.
> 
> "Cancel culture" is not institutionalized or legalized, it's decentralized, grassroots (or populist) phenomena. There are some fundamental problems with privacy, data ownership, and the rights not to be publically shamed which I am aware of but I am not an expert of. This goes back to the idea of the internet as "fifth power", proposed by Ignacio Ramonet. It's a feature of empowered civil society, not authoritarianism. Whether or not this evolves into a form of mob rule is another question.
> 
> Knowing where to draw the line is about exercising moral judgment which needs to be practiced, in my opinion. I don't see why we should be shy away from it. I don't think civil society can function properly without knowing where to draw the line. Are people so sensitive right now that historical figures cannot be judged?


You can't just "check" to what extent civil rights are protected, as though there's a little list you can look at. On your second point about people deciding public affairs, we're into a whole world of complexity there, too. Can people decide their own public affairs in the UK, Belgium, Italy, the US, Japan, let alone China or Russia? Search me.

All I can say is that the last few years have been the only time in my life that I have been seriously worried about the rise of powerful authoritarianism in my country (with people being hounded out of their jobs, required to be re-educated at their workplace, cancelled from public view, denied platforms to express opinions - all because they don't toe a particular dogmatic line). The fact that it is rooted in aspects of society which are not readily subject to democratic influence is anything but comforting. By the way, I find this equally worrying in relation to people expressing views I agree with and views I don't - hence the Voltaire-attributed quote.

I see relevance to the Furtwangler topic in parallels to the rise of another tyranny. And this is especially worrying as we face an economic crisis post Covid-19.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> After having been seen as the crypto-Maoist in this thread, I should just note that I agree entirely with this post. Hence my remarks about cancel culture (as it is the same people who are now seeking to silence other opinions to their own), and hence my post about the (mis-attributed) Voltaire quote and the enlightenment (as those same people now seem to be happy not to defend those who disagree with them, and indeed now actively work to silence them).
> 
> Trying to get back to Furtwangler, though, one of the things I find fascinating about people who find Furtwangler fascinating is their interest in digging over the details of his relationship with the 3rd Reich (and comparing it with the relationships of others). As far as I can tell these musical people were faced with an appalling situation and made their own evolving judgements about how to behave - maybe at some points they thought their own past behaviour was misjudged and regrettable. Unless one is an academic studying the issues, I don't see what is added by trying to rank them on some sort of purity score from our privileged vantage point.
> 
> By the way, few musical works move me because of historical context. Maybe some Shostakovich does, but the piece that definitely does is Strauss' Metamorphosen. That is such a lament, and I don't want to know exactly what Strauss was lamenting (- I would positively seek to avoid hearing about any letters he wrote explaining it, or his relationship with the regime). What matters to me about that piece is how it makes me feel. For me it conjures up thoughts of a great cultural heritage (that of the Austro/German world) which has been brought to destruction. I can imagine the internal conflict of looking at the destruction that you can see (of architectural gems, of moral standards, of lives) and at the same time feeling that the horrors can be traced back to trends in thinking from within the same culture (anti-semitism, Hegel, Marx, Nietsche, Heidegger). But at the same time, I can imagine anything that I might lament, precisely because the music abstracts the feelings from any particular context - which is what great art does.
> 
> *Suppose, and I am not saying that it was, but suppose that a lot of the lament in Metamorphosen arose from Strauss lamenting that Germany lost the war. * I would still think it is a beautiful work, even though I have absolutely no fellow-feeling with the idea that Germany winning the war would have been desirable. Hence, I don't really want to probe the inner feelings of Strauss in composing it. Similarly, I don't really want to know what Beethoven thought about Napoleon: for me that sort of information is not helpful, nor even neutral, in appreciating the Eroica; it is negative, because it removes abstraction from the work and sullies it with tawdry tittle-tattle. This is where I have some sympathy with Toscanini's allegro con brio point: if you impose on me some factual stuff about the role of Napoleon in Beethoven's creation of the Eroica, then I would (politely) rather not know. I don't really mind whether your allegro con brio is a bit faster than my idea or a bit slower (if you can convince me that your performance hangs together in its own terms), but I do think (1) if there is no sense of allegro con brio in your performance then it is a different piece of music from Beethoven's (- perhaps it is better, though?) and (2) Napoleon is neither here nor there in my appreciation of the piece.
> 
> In contrast, Cabaret is a great musical, but it is very much set in a specific context, and I think attempts to abstract from that and claim that Cabaret says much about any other rising tyranny are fanciful, or anything else.
> 
> Hence: Cabaret - excellent thought-provoking entertainment; Metamorphosen - great art. And don't tell me what Strauss was thinking when he wrote it.
> 
> Addendum: VW Symphony 3 moves me because of the 1st world war context.


A few days after the completion of Metamorphosen, Strauss wrote in his private diary: "The most terrible period of human history is at an end, the twelve year reign of bestiality, ignorance and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany's 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom."
It is a lament, but not to the 50 million dead, but to German culture.


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> A few days after the completion of Metamorphosen, Strauss wrote in his private diary: "The most terrible period of human history is at an end, the twelve year reign of bestiality, ignorance and anti-culture under the greatest criminals, during which Germany's 2000 years of cultural evolution met its doom."
> It is a lament, but not to the 50 million dead, but to German culture.


Indeed - but I don't really want to know, whatever his feelings.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> But they may be among the easiest. While we point the finger at 'collaborating artists', we still maintain diplomatic and economic relations with dubious regimes (and that's before we consider the conduct of our own governments). History might have 'taught us', but I'm not convinced we've yet learned.
> 
> Grey is such a difficult colour to discern.


Of course we do because the vast majority of 'regimes' in the world are 'dubious' to say the least! It's only when you get out and see the world and what goes on in other countries you realise that our own regimes - flawed though they may be - are preferable!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> After having been seen as the crypto-Maoist in this thread, I should just note that I agree entirely with this post. Hence my remarks about cancel culture (as it is the same people who are now seeking to silence other opinions to their own), and hence my post about the (mis-attributed) Voltaire quote and the enlightenment (as those same people now seem to be happy not to defend those who disagree with them, and indeed now actively work to silence them).


I still don't see what "cancel culture" or Voltaire's quote has to do with the discussion. But I get that you are personally not comfortable with them. Nobody is calling or even suggesting you are a "crypto-Maoist". Judging from what I read, I don't even think you know what being a Maoist really means (and pardon me for the condescending tone). In my view, you shouldn't be bothered by that thought.



Eclectic Al said:


> Trying to get back to Furtwangler, though, one of the things I find fascinating about people who find Furtwangler fascinating is their interest in digging over the details of his relationship with the 3rd Reich (and comparing it with the relationships of others). As far as I can tell these musical people were faced with an appalling situation and made their own evolving judgements about how to behave - maybe at some points they thought their own past behaviour was misjudged and regrettable. Unless one is an academic studying the issues, I don't see what is added by trying to rank them on some sort of purity score from our privileged vantage point.


First of all, there is no "purity" score on anyone. During the postwar period, the allies had a "de-Nazification" process which is an important Justice movement that aims to normalize German culture from Nazi influence (and also punish those who actively supported Nazi). Furtwangler was certainly an important and interesting case during this "de-Nazification" process (there are documentaries, books, and a movie about it).

It is interesting not only to the fans of Furtwangler (who often see him as a stoic hero) but also to his maligners and critics (who often see him as morally flawed). And the debate is still going on. There is a reason that you don't see Mengelberg or Kabasta being promoted in the west. This is not special to Furtwangler, music lovers are interested about history and anecdotes about composers, conductors, pianists in general. If you are not interested, then, of course, you are not going to see any point in it. But it's important to know that bit of history, for various reasons, in my view. And people have the right express their hate toward Nazi sympathizers, regardless of their artistic achievements.



Eclectic Al said:


> I can imagine the internal conflict of looking at the destruction that you can see (of architectural gems, of moral standards, of lives) and at the same time feeling that the horrors can be traced back to trends in thinking from within the same culture (anti-semitism, Hegel, Marx, Nietsche, Heidegger). But at the same time, I can imagine anything that I might lament, precisely because the music abstracts the feelings from any particular context - which is what great art does.


This seems a bit self-contradictory. The image of the lament of the devastated state of German culture in your mind is a "particular context". I am not so sure about "horror traced back to the thinkings of ..." The "horror" has a good socio-economic explanation. All those thinking belongs to the enlightenment tradition (including Marx, but maybe not Nietzche), and judging from your lamentation of the enlightenment, I doubt that you share the sentiment with the post-modernists etc. Nonetheless, I can understand the association.



Eclectic Al said:


> Similarly, I don't really want to know what Beethoven thought about Napoleon: for me that sort of information is not helpful, nor even neutral, in appreciating the Eroica; it is negative, because it removes abstraction from the work and sullies it with tawdry tittle-tattle.


"An extant copy of the score bears two scratched-out, hand-written sub-titles; initially, the Italian phrase Intitolata Bonaparte ("Titled Bonaparte"), secondly, the German phrase Geschriben auf Bonaparte ("Written for Bonaparte"), four lines below the Italian sub-title. Three months after retracting his initial Napoleonic dedication of the symphony, Beethoven informed his music publisher that "The title of the symphony is really Bonaparte". In 1806, the score was published under the Italian title Sinfonia Eroica ... composta per festeggiare il sovvenire di un grande Uomo ("Heroic Symphony, Composed to celebrate the memory of a great man")."

If you think this information is "negative", then suit yourself. If you don't even care about what Beethoven had in mind, then why do you find his metronome markings so sacred? You can do whatever you like, really. But whether conductors should adopt such a view, is a different matter. And these threads did make a lot of progress discussing that.



Eclectic Al said:


> If you impose on me some factual stuff about the role of Napoleon in Beethoven's creation of the Eroica, then I would (politely) rather not know.


Yes, maybe people should have the right to "not know", that's an interesting thought. But a classical music forum doesn't seem like the place to "not know" about the facts about Beethoven.



Eclectic Al said:


> Hence: Cabaret - excellent thought-provoking entertainment; Metamorphosen - great art. And don't tell me what Strauss was thinking when he wrote it.


You are missing out if you don't know what Strauss is trying to express in his Alpine Symphony. I don't think any concert program note will "respect" your "right to not know" what's it about, especially if you read it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Of course we do because the vast majority of 'regimes' in the world are 'dubious' to say the least! It's only when you get out and see the world and what goes on in other countries you realise that our own regimes - flawed though they may be - are preferable!


I'm not interested in this line of discussion, except as it relates to the OP, hence my comment about it being easy to make judgements about WF and DSCH for their working with their contemporary governments, and this being a reason behind the fascination they have for some people.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If you don't even care about what Beethoven had in mind, then why do you find his metronome markings so sacred?


To be consistent with my earlier posts, I certainly defend your right to your views above, and indeed to your opinion of my lack of knowledge about so many things relative to your own doubtless extensive knowledge.

The only challenge I would make, though, is a factual one: I certainly did not express any feeling about metronome markings. My only reference was to the infamous allegro con brio quote, and even in that context I noted that I personally didn't mind whether a particular interpretation was slower or faster than another, as long the the performance convinced on its own terms.

I suppose the contentious aspect of my remarks on tempo was that if a performance went down the route of not being recognisable as allegro con brio (according to any reasonable interpretation of the term) then maybe that was on the road to becoming a different piece - much as might apply with Stokowski-type alterations to a piece. I even noted that some might see it as a better piece. And, by the way, my idea of allegro con brio would be about whether the listener gets a feeling of allegro con brio, not a question of checking things against a stopwatch. By way of contrast, if I listen to two performances of the Eroica I am not sure how I am supposed to judge that one is more Napoleonic than another, with that second one perhaps being more Prince Eugene of Savoy-ish, or maybe a touch too Washingtonian.

To be clear, I'm not in the metronomic straightjacket camp.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> To be consistent with my earlier posts, I certainly defend your right to your views above, and indeed to your opinion of my lack of knowledge about so many things relative to your own doubtless extensive knowledge.
> 
> The only challenge I would make, though, is a factual one: I certainly did not express any feeling about metronome markings. My only reference was to the infamous allegro con brio quote, and even in that context I noted that I personally didn't mind whether a particular interpretation was slower or faster than another, as long the the performance convinced on its own terms.
> 
> I suppose the contentious aspect of my remarks on tempo was that if a performance went down the route of not being recognisable as allegro con brio (according to any reasonable interpretation of the term) then maybe that was on the road to becoming a different piece - much as might apply with Stokowski-type alterations to a piece. I even noted that some might see it as a better piece. And, by the way, my idea of allegro con brio would be about whether the listener gets a feeling of allegro con brio, not a question of checking things against a stopwatch. By way of contrast, if I listen to two performances of the Eroica I am not sure how I am supposed to judge that one is more Napoleonic than another, with that second one perhaps being more Prince Eugene of Savoy-ish, or maybe a touch too Washingtonian.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not in the metronomic straightjacket camp.


Thanks for the clarification. Your point is fair.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> To be clear, I'm not in the metronomic straightjacket camp.


I don't think anyone is except in certain people's imagination! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I'm not interested in this line of discussion, except as it relates to the OP, hence my comment about it being easy to make judgements about WF and DSCH for their working with their contemporary governments, and this being a reason behind the fascination they have for some people.


Even in the light of your comments in 1591?


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Even in the light of your comments in 1591?


Do you mean post #1591, or the year 1591? After all, this thread has been going for a long time. :lol:


----------



## Fabulin

MacLeod said:


> I'm not interested in this line of discussion, except as it relates to the OP, hence my comment about it being easy to make judgements about WF and DSCH for their working with their contemporary governments, and this being a reason behind the fascination they have for some people.


fun fact: both Furtwängler and Shostakovich disapproved of Toscanini's conducting


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Do you mean post #1591, or the year 1591? After all, this thread has been going for a long time. :lol:


May be both! Not sure even I was around in 1591! wbu? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Fabulin said:


> fun fact: both Furtwängler and Shostakovich disapproved of Toscanini's conducting


And Stalin disapproved of Shostakovich's opera!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I've been sampling Schubert 9th's this weekend, and I have to say this may be Furtwangler's most definitive interpretation. I just listened to the DG studio, one of his best sounding recordings, and it really is heads and shoulders above the rest. The interpretation and the playing are just so darned powerful. And honestly, I think this is a symphony that can get dull and repetitive without a great interpreter on the podium. The closest I heard to a comparable interpretation is Mengelberg.

Among stereo versions, Solti was the best I heard. Not nearly as powerful as Furtwangler, but beautifully detailed and engaging throughout. Krips is a beautifully elegant, opulent, and charming version, but it does plod a bit, which seems to be a common issue with Krips. Szell is energetic in his customary way and provides an efficient, cohesive view. Munch and the BSO sound glorious and provide a lot of energy, but I found the interpretation wanting in terms of holding my interest. I had read a lot about Toscanini's 1941 Philadelphia account. I found it very impressive but way too driven for Schubert. It gave me the impression of the orchestra players doing jumping jacks in their warmup. Very "drill sergeant" like.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've been sampling Schubert 9th's this weekend, and I have to say this may be Furtwangler's most definitive interpretation. I just listened to the DG studio, one of his best sounding recordings, and it really is heads and shoulders above the rest. The interpretation and the playing are just so darned powerful. And honestly, I think this is a symphony that can get dull and repetitive without a great interpreter on the podium. The closest I heard to a comparable interpretation is Mengelberg.
> 
> Among stereo versions, Solti was the best I heard. Not nearly as powerful as Furtwangler, but beautifully detailed and engaging throughout. Krips is a beautifully elegant, opulent, and charming version, but it does plod a bit, which seems to be a common issue with Krips. Szell is energetic in his customary way and provides an efficient, cohesive view. Munch and the BSO sound glorious and provide a lot of energy, but I found the interpretation wanting in terms of holding my interest. I had read a lot about Toscanini's 1941 Philadelphia account. I found it very impressive but way too driven for Schubert. It gave me the impression of the orchestra players doing jumping jacks in their warmup. Very "drill sergeant" like.


How about Wand? Is his 9th too stable/pedantic for your taste? I found Wand's approach to be superbly balanced and natural.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> How about Wand? Is his 9th too stable/pedantic for your taste? I found Wand's approach to be superbly balanced and natural.


That's next on my list, along with Barbirolli and Klemperer


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've been sampling Schubert 9th's this weekend, and I have to say this may be Furtwangler's most definitive interpretation. I just listened to the DG studio, one of his best sounding recordings, and it really is heads and shoulders above the rest. The interpretation and the playing are just so darned powerful. And honestly, I think this is a symphony that can get dull and repetitive without a great interpreter on the podium. The closest I heard to a comparable interpretation is Mengelberg.
> 
> Among stereo versions, Solti was the best I heard. Not nearly as powerful as Furtwangler, but beautifully detailed and engaging throughout. Krips is a beautifully elegant, opulent, and charming version, but it does plod a bit, which seems to be a common issue with Krips. Szell is energetic in his customary way and provides an efficient, cohesive view. Munch and the BSO sound glorious and provide a lot of energy, but I found the interpretation wanting in terms of holding my interest. I had read a lot about Toscanini's 1941 Philadelphia account. I found it very impressive but way too driven for Schubert. It gave me the impression of the orchestra players doing jumping jacks in their warmup. Very "drill sergeant" like.


This has always had "classic" status, and I can't say I've heard one that I prefer. I used to dislike the work and didn't listen to many recordings of it, but I got hold of a set of Schubert symphonies by Roy Goodman and his period band which I enjoyed immensely. Not sure what I'd think of it now that years have passed and I'm more reconciled to the 9th symphony (except for the overextended last movement).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> How about Wand? Is his 9th too stable/pedantic for your taste? I found Wand's approach to be superbly balanced and natural.


Well, hell has frozen over. I actually liked a Wand recording. There were still parts of it I found bland, particularly in the inner movements, but the endings of the outer movements were great. Thumbs up.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> This has always had "classic" status, and I can't say I've heard one that I prefer. I used to dislike the work and didn't listen to many recordings of it, but I got hold of a set of Schubert symphonies by Roy Goodman and his period band which I enjoyed immensely. Not sure what I'd think of it now that years have passed and I'm more reconciled to the 9th symphony (except for the overextended last movement).


It has had classic status but has never been one that I feel stands up well in comparison (competition?) with other classic accounts such as those by Krips and Solti (to name only two). It is certainly not terrible but I never really understood the worship of it. Too often, it sounds heavy handed and rather trudging. It is a work I love - as much as almost any symphony - and I am generally a big fan of Furtwangler (or at least his Beethoven and Bruckner) so I have no axe to grind, here.

I will now have to listen to it to check that I still think of it in the same way!


----------



## millionrainbows

If Furtwangler made a tree fall over in the woods, and nobody was there to hear it, I'm quite confident that it would be transcendent, and full of the tragedy we see in a rotten tree. It would be a metaphor for the fall of Germany, yea, of Man himself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> It has had classic status but has never been one that I feel stands up well in comparison (competition?) with other classic accounts such as those by Krips and Solti (to name only two). It is certainly not terrible but I never really understood the worship of it. Too often, it sounds heavy handed and rather trudging. It is a work I love - as much as almost any symphony - and I am generally a big fan of Furtwangler (or at least his Beethoven and Bruckner) so I have no axe to grind, here.
> 
> I will now have to listen to it to check that I still think of it in the same way!


You're not alone. I noticed Ralph Moore wrote a similar review on Amazon. I think Furtwangler gives life to the work. It is not IMO a work that plays itself. For example, I found Munch to be very well played but tedious.

Regarding WF, I may be the only one of his fans who isn't so keen on the 1942 Schubert 9th. Many swear by it. I actually find that it is undeniably tense but too much so for this work. I feel the same way about his wartime Beethoven 6th and 7th and even somewhat the same about his Brahms 4th.

The 1951 DG is wonderful though. You may also consider the live 1953 BPO. Very similar in concept, but a bit more nuanced and more mellow. I find it a beautiful interpretation.


----------



## DavidA

I was reading George Solti's autobiography last night and I came upon this, talking about Beethoven's ninth symphony:

"Furtwangler's recorded performance of the both, which opened the Bayreuth Festival in 1951, seems to me much too slow. His widow told me that while she was driving him home the morning after, he asked her to stop the car so that he could take a breath of fresh air in order to get the previous night's 'horrible performance' out of his head. The lesson of this story is that all the serious artists are often dissatisfied with their work."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Funny enough, David Hurwitz actually praised the ’51 Furtwängler, calling it “metaphysical.” Even while actively trashing many other of his recordings. I do think the Andante was always a smidgen too slow in Furtwängler’s interpretations (it should be at a walking pace, after all), but that’s a minor quibble. Szell has a special place in my heart for helping me get to know the work, but I think the graceful lyricism of Krips may be my overall stereo favorite.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I was reading George Solti's autobiography last night and I came upon this, talking about Beethoven's ninth symphony:
> 
> "Furtwangler's recorded performance of the both, which opened the Bayreuth Festival in 1951, seems to me much too slow. His widow told me that while she was driving him home the morning after, he asked her to stop the car so that he could take a breath of fresh air in order to get the previous night's 'horrible performance' out of his head. The lesson of this story is that all the serious artists are often dissatisfied with their work."


Carlos Kleiber was also this way. I think artists' own self-criticism should be taken with a grain of salt. The Bayreuth 9th, ideally heard on Orfeo, is fantastic. It was actually the recording that first got me into Furtwangler in the mid-90s.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Funny enough, David Hurwitz actually praised the '51 Furtwängler, calling it "metaphysical." Even while actively trashing many other of his recordings. I do think the Andante was always a smidgen too slow in Furtwängler's interpretations (it should be at a walking pace, after all), but that's a minor quibble. Szell has a special place in my heart for helping me get to know the work, but I think the graceful lyricism of Krips may be my overall stereo favorite.


He only appreciates Furtwangler in good sound. He calls the 1942 WF Beethoven 9th "garbage" but then praises the 1954 Lucerne 9th simply because it has clear sound. Take Hurtwitz with a grain of salt. He requires clarity and good sound, or else he thinks there is no musical value.


----------



## vincula

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The 1951 DG is wonderful though. You may also consider the live 1953 BPO. Very similar in concept, but a bit more nuanced and more mellow. I find it a beautiful interpretation.


I've got the 'DG '51 on vinyl and it has enjoyed many a whirl, but I do prefer his '53 BPO -included in the Audite box.

Must put an ear to Krips' rendition. Have listened a lot to Krips and Keilberth lately. Very underrated conductors imho.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## vincula

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He only appreciates Furtwangler in good sound. He calls the 1942 WF Beethoven 9th "garbage" but then praises the 1954 Lucerne 9th simply because it has clear sound. Take Hurtwitz with a grain of salt. He requires clarity and good sound, or else he thinks there is no musical value.


Haven't ever understood the hype around the '54 Lucerne 9th. I've listened to Tahra's and Japanese editions too, but I'd rather listen to his Bayreuth '51 any day.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

vincula said:


> Haven't ever understood the hype around the '54 Lucerne 9th. I've listened to Tahra's and Japanese editions too, but I'd rather listen to his Bayreuth '51 any day.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Absolutely agree! The 1951 Bayreuth has so much more life and sense of occasion. But that's the thing - some people hear that, and some people don't. Some people can only tell the difference between good sound and bad sound.


----------



## Barbebleu

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolutely agree! The 1951 Bayreuth has so much more life and sense of occasion. But that's the thing - some people hear that, and some people don't. Some people can only tell the difference between good sound and bad sound.


But possibly the same people can determine both?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> "Furtwangler's recorded performance of the both, which opened the Bayreuth Festival in 1951, seems to me much too slow. His widow told me that while she was driving him home the morning after, he asked her to stop the car so that he could take a breath of fresh air in order to get the previous night's 'horrible performance' out of his head. The lesson of this story is that all the serious artists are often dissatisfied with their work."


Furtwangler was also unhappy with most of his recordings, hearing all his "sloppiness". His philosophy was a "live" one. But even if he had the luxury of studio editing like Karajan postwar, I doubt that he would go for it. Celibidache obviously didn't (and ironically became very popular after his family published his radio recordings). Sokolov is enjoying a similar status (he records occasionally) as the recluse hermit whose concert is always a great event.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Barbebleu said:


> But possibly the same people can determine both?


Not following what you mean. People can disagree with me about the 1951 Bayreuth having more life than 1954 Lucerne, certainly.

I am just saying I have come across many people, and Hurwitz is one whom I have personally debated, who do not hear past sound quality. If you talk about the intensity of a performance, they say you are making it up.


----------



## Barbebleu

I suppose what I mean is that emotional intensity is subjective and can often transcend sonic fidelity. Some people can discern both and for any given performance of a piece of music can opt for what is most important for them at that moment. They won’t always opt for sound quality over the intensity of performance or vice versa.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, I happen to think Trout's lists on this site are an excellent resource. He choices are diverse, well-informed, and I would personally trust them over any of Penguin Guides, Grammophone Magazines, Classics Today, or the like.

Of course it does not exactly match my own preferences, but I thought it would be interesting to see where he ranks Furtwangler recordings for specific works:

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 3*
1. 1944 VPO

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 5*
7. 1943 BPO

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 6*
7. 1952 VPO

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 7*
3. 1943 BPO

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 9*
1. 1942 BPO
3. 1954 Lucerne
5. 1951 Bayreuth

*Beethoven, Piano concerto No. 5*
2. 1951 w/Fischer

*Beethoven, Violin concerto*
5. 1953 w/Menuhin

*Brahms, Symphony No. 1*
2. 1951 NDR
4. 1952 BPO

*Brahms, Symphony No. 4*
3. 1943 BPO
5. 1948 BPO

*Brahms, Piano concerto No. 2*
2. 1942 w/Fischer

*Bruckner, Symphony No. 8*
2. 1944 VPO
10. 1949 BPO

*Bruckner, Symphony No. 9*
2. 1944 BPO

*Mozart, Symphony No. 40*
3. 1949 VPO

*Mozart, Don Giovanni*
6. 1953 Salzburg

*Schubert, Symphony No. 9*
1. 1951 BPO
5. 1942 BPO

*Strauss, Four Last Songs*
8. 1950 with Flagstad

*Tchaikovsky, Symphony No. 6*
3. 1938 BPO

*Verdi, Otello*
7. 1951 Salzburg

*Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen*
7. 1953 Rome RAI

*Wagner, Tristan und Isolde*
1. 1952 with Flagstad


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So he ranks ranks four Furtwangler recordings as the top choice:

1944 VPO Beethoven 3rd
1942 BPO Beethoven 9th
1951 BPO Schubert 9th
1952 Wagner Tristan und Isolde

Hard to argue with any of those four in terms of reputation.


----------



## BachIsBest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So he ranks ranks four Furtwangler recordings as the top choice:
> 
> 1944 VPO Beethoven 3rd
> 1942 BPO Beethoven 9th
> 1951 BPO Schubert 9th
> 1952 Wagner Tristan und Isolde
> 
> Hard to argue with any of those four in terms of reputation.


To argue that any of those don't have a substantial reputation would be - dare I say it? - yes, I do - ... untrue.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Furtwangler was also unhappy with most of his recordings, hearing all his "sloppiness". His philosophy was a "live" one. But even if he had the luxury of studio editing like Karajan postwar, I doubt that he would go for it. Celibidache obviously didn't (and ironically became very popular after his family published his radio recordings). Sokolov is enjoying a similar status (he records occasionally) as the recluse hermit whose concert is always a great event.


Note that it wasn't the recording that a Furtwangler was unhappy about. It was the performance! He complained about it on the night of the performance. So did Walter Legge.


----------



## vincula

If we were to consider top-performers level of self-criticism every time we listen to their music making, we'd rarely be able to listen to any record at all. As the great Czech conductor Václav Talich put it in 1938: _"In art there is no such thing as a goal definitively achieved. Artistic growth is a series of errors ,and a search that lasts as long as the artist's life"_.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're not alone. I noticed Ralph Moore wrote a similar review on Amazon. I think Furtwangler gives life to the work. It is not IMO a work that plays itself. For example, I found Munch to be very well played but tedious.
> 
> Regarding WF, I may be the only one of his fans who isn't so keen on the 1942 Schubert 9th. Many swear by it. I actually find that it is undeniably tense but too much so for this work. I feel the same way about his wartime Beethoven 6th and 7th and even somewhat the same about his Brahms 4th.
> 
> The 1951 DG is wonderful though. You may also consider the live 1953 BPO. Very similar in concept, but a bit more nuanced and more mellow. I find it a beautiful interpretation.


It's not that I think it is terrible. I just don't feel it deserves legendary status - not for me anyway - and that there are many recordings that I feel are better. For me it comes alive, and seems to be about to offer something special, in the last movement but there it has the fault of Furtwangler peaking too early, giving the impression that the movement is too long.


----------



## Enthusiast

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Furtwangler was also unhappy with most of his recordings, hearing all his "sloppiness". His philosophy was a "live" one. But even if he had the luxury of studio editing like Karajan postwar, I doubt that he would go for it. Celibidache obviously didn't (and ironically became very popular after his family published his radio recordings). Sokolov is enjoying a similar status (he records occasionally) as the recluse hermit whose concert is always a great event.


An interesting case of avoiding recording in a studio was Annie Fischer. She felt she needed an audience to do her best work. But she also recorded her legendary complete set of Beethoven sonatas (for many, the best ever) over a considerable length of time in the studio. She worked on them until she felt each was perfect (for what she wanted). But she had a lifetime of experience playing the works live she felt she was able to channel the best of her live performances, and all the lessons she had learned playing the works to audience after audience, in a studio.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> It's not that I think it is terrible. I just don't feel it deserves legendary status - not for me anyway - and that there are many recordings that I feel are better. For me it comes alive, and seems to be about to offer something special, in the last movement but there it has the fault of Furtwangler peaking too early, *giving the impression that the movement is too long.*


Heh heh. Some of us think the movement really _is_ too long. And have you ever heard a performance that takes all the marked repeats? The symphony uncut is an hour long! If I were a string player having to repeat that little galloping figure over and over I'd want to commit suicide. Just listening through it has me trying to remember how to tie a noose.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> To argue that any of those don't have a substantial reputation would be - dare I say it? - yes, I do - ... untrue.


Only the 1942 Beethoven 9th may be a controversial choice, but more owing to some thinking it too intense and preferring either 1951 Bayreuth or 1954 Lucerne.

He has the 1951 Brahms 1st and 1944 Bruckner 8th and 9th listed as second choices, I think those three are just as great as the other four, but in these cases it is hard to argue against his top choices which all have the benefit of stereo sound: Klemperer's Brahms 1st, Karajan's Bruckner 8th, and Giulini's Bruckner 9th.

All in all, Trout did an excellent job IMO. All the major conductors are represented in their best recordings. HIP is represented. It almost comes across as Trout not even necessarily always giving his own view as much as it is a balanced view. We can all benefit from a variety of styles and interpretations.


----------



## BachIsBest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Only the 1942 Beethoven 9th may be a controversial choice, but more owing to some thinking it too intense and preferring either 1951 Bayreuth or 1954 Lucerne.
> 
> He has the 1951 Brahms 1st and 1944 Bruckner 8th and 9th listed as second choices, I think those three are just as great as the other four, but in these cases it is hard to argue against his top choices which all have the benefit of stereo sound: Klemperer's Brahms 1st, Karajan's Bruckner 8th, and Giulini's Bruckner 9th.
> 
> All in all, Trout did an excellent job IMO. All the major conductors are represented in their best recordings. HIP is represented. It almost comes across as Trout not even necessarily always giving his own view as much as it is a balanced view. We can all benefit from a variety of styles and interpretations.


I agree that looking at Trout's blog is a good source of recommendations, however, I think you missed the point of my post; I was merely using the well-established reputation of these recordings to make a joke about how loaded the word truth has become in this thread. That's all.

Also, your posts are also a good source of recommendations. If you don't mind the rather extreme pro-Furtwangler bias.


----------



## JAS

BachIsBest said:


> I agree that looking at Trout's blog is a good source of recommendations, however, I think you missed the point of my post; I was merely using the well-established reputation of these recordings to make a joke about how loaded the word truth has become in this thread. . . .


Ain't _that_ the truth!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> I agree that looking at Trout's blog is a good source of recommendations, however, I think you missed the point of my post; I was merely using the well-established reputation of these recordings to make a joke about how loaded the word truth has become in this thread. That's all.
> 
> Also, your posts are also a good source of recommendations. If you don't mind the rather extreme pro-Furtwangler bias.


Ah, gotcha. Yeah it's a shame people hijacked that discussion. I'll never understand why simply saying that truth exists as an abstract concept led so many into the "my way vs your way" rabbit hole. It's not my fault that people made that illogical connection.

I own dozens upon dozens of my favorite symphony recordings. None of them tell the whole story. Sometimes I may even pop in a Reiner Brahms 4th to hear a "less deep" version. They all have something to say. A truth to tell.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> None of them tell the whole story. Sometimes I may even pop in a Reiner Brahms 4th to hear a "less deep" version. They all have something to say....


Toscanini's and Reiner's Brahms 4s are awesome!!..it's amazing what great conductors can do with a score when they are not burdened with or distracted by the attempted apprehension of imagined ponderous, extra-musical, metaphysical baggage...
Power, expression, drama, Really stunning achievements by "trained monkeys".....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

I find Toscanini's Brahms 4 really good. It's "revealing" to me.

It is possible that the impression that Reiner lacks depth is a prevalent prejudice. There are a lot of details in Reiner's recordings. But I am not sure how the razor-sharp precision and details observed in the score translate to the impression of "depth", sometimes, they don't.

A master painter who paints in broad strokes will always give a better impression of depth than a master painter who paints with photorealism.


----------



## Heck148

<<Explain Fascination with Furtwangler >>
I can't....it seems to be an infatuation with an obsolete approach to conducting, a hangover from the ultra-romantic era....an approach in which pursuit of some sort of abstract non-musical "truth" supersedes the actual content of the score. It has been eclipsed by a far more successful approach, which not only uses the score as the source of interpetation, but has also produced far more accurate performances, powerful in their expression and execution. ( imo, of course).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It is possible that the impression that Reiner lacks depth is a prevalent prejudice. There are a lot of details in Reiner's recordings. But I am not sure how the razor-sharp precision and details observed in the score translate to the impression of "depth", sometimes, they don't.


Well, sure, but for instance the Brahms 4th lacks drama, the final movement in particular. But there is an unforced quality that can be refreshing. It sounds beautiful. Definitely a worthy version, though not an only version. I am also a fan of 1935 Toscanini.

My list of "essential" Brahms 4ths, in order:

Furtwängler (1949) (Tahra, Preiser, Seven Seas)
Weingartner (EMI, Living Era, Andante)
Toscanini (1935) (EMI, Arkadia)
Klemperer (1954) (Testament)
Kleiber (DG)
Abbado (DG)
Reiner (Chesky)
Van Beinum (Philips)


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I find Toscanini's Brahms 4 really good. It's "revealing" to me.


 right, it's awesome...



> It is possible that the impression that Reiner lacks depth is a prevalent prejudice.


It's an illusion.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> has also produced far more accurate performances


Your point is well noted, Heck. There is an element of truth in what you are saying.

But do you think "accuracy" is an important category in the appreciation of music?

When I go see a play, I wouldn't praise it for being "accurate" (to some imaginary standard).

When I go see a painting, being "accurate" is generally not high praise.

For a knife thrower, being "accurate" is certainly high praise (or the only praise there is).

Please enlighten me why should I praise a performance for being "accurate"?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Your point is well noted, Heck. There is an element of truth in what you are saying.
> But do you think "accuracy" is an important category in the appreciation of music?


Most certainly....scores are quite explicit regarding what notes are to be sounded in sequence (melody) or simultaneously (harmony)...we're talking about concert "classical" music, not rock or jazz, etc...if a performance is inaccurate, wrong notes, wrong harmonies are being sounded.



> When I go see a play, I wouldn't praise it for being "accurate" (to some imaginary standard).


You would certainly expect the actors to follow the script..yes??


> Please enlighten me why should I praise a performance for being "accurate"?


So you actually hear the music you wanted to hear.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> You would certainly expect the actors to follow the script..yes??


Yes, but no one will praise an actor for following the script. Marlon Brando and Humphrey Bogart are not great because they "followed the script". In fact, people often praise actors for going off the script, let me give you 3 examples of legendary status

1. Scene "Tears-in-rain" in Blade Runner (1982) was improvised.
2. Scene "Here's Johnny" in The Shining (1980) was improvised.
3. Marlon Brando's scene in the Apocalypse Now (1979) was improvised.



Heck148 said:


> Most certainly....scores are quite explicit regarding ehat notes are to be sounded in sequence (melody) or simultaneously (harmony)...we're talking about concert "classical" music, not rock or jazz, etc...if a performance is inaccurate, wrong notes, wrong harmonies are being sounded.


I understand that. But since you are a professional musician, I'd like to ask your professional opinion on how "accuracy" is measured, in a live performance.

Do you have a measurement? Or are you just painting a general picture? How is one performance more "accurate" than the other, by what measure?

If it is the percentage of "wrong notes", "wrong harmonies" in a performance. I would like to ask you

1. What is the actual standard or threshold of the error rate for an "accurate" performance? 5%? 1%? 0.1%?
2. What is the relative weights on the error rate of "wrong notes" vs "wrong harmonies" vs "wrong beats" vs "wrong entries"?
3. What is the relative weights on a semitone too high vs a quartertone too high, or half-beat late vs one beat late?
4. What is the priority of "accuracy" in evaluating a performance? Top priority? Secondary priority? Above what and below what?
5. Where are all these standards and informations?
6. Why world-class musicians and books and critics almost never talk about "accuracy"?

If musical performances are intended for the general public including non-musicians, then to what extent can listeners be expected to know "accuracy" without a score? Or are they not expected to know how "accurate" at all? If listeners cannot tell how "accurate" a performance is pass a certain point, why is it important for them to appreciate?



Heck148 said:


> So you actually hear the music you wanted to hear.


Do you hear the music you don't want to hear?


----------



## Heck148

I wonder if there is confusion regarding the "style" of the music, as opposed to some abstract "truth"....for example - a work might be written, to be performed in Spanish style, or "Gypsy" style, or Viennese waltz style....this style may be apparent thru the title or instructions of the work - ie "El Salon Mexico", "Zigeunerlied", etc, .or it may be readily apparent from the score, thru rhythmic, melodic, harmonic content...but these all have practical application regarding rhythm, melody, phrasing, etc. They are not abstract, extra-musical.
Now, technically, this information is not written in the score, but it will, of course, be a necessary component to any successful performance...the same goes with a composer's specific instructions, written or spoken....works of both Elgar (Enigma Vars) and Vaughan Williams (Sym #2) contain such examples...performance traditions founded by the composer, but not written in the score..
The point is, no musician, conductor rigidly, dully just buries their head in the printed page to the exclusion of all else.
But these additional musical factors are certainly real, actual items pertinent to performance....they are not abstract, philosophical concepts, or "truths" to be apprehended by some sort of mystical communion.
I wonder if some of the confusion is based on these factors....??
To me, conductors like Monteux and Reiner are remarkably consistent in their astute musical styles, no matter what the repertoire...they always get the "style" right...wide range of repertoire, their performances always sound "right", convincing for whatever music they are conducting.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> I wonder if there is confusion regarding the "style" of the music, as opposed to some abstract "truth"....for example - a work might be written, to be performed in Spanish style, or "Gypsy" style, or Viennese waltz style....this style may be apparent thru the title or instructions of the work - ie "El Salon Mexico", "Zigeunerlied", etc, .or it may be readily apparent from the score, thru rhythmic, melodic, harmonic content...but these all have practical application regarding rhythm, melody, phrasing, etc. They are not abstract, extra-musical.
> Now, technically, this information is not written in the score, but it will, of course, be a necessary component to any successful performance...the same goes with a composer's specific instructions, written or spoken....works of both Elgar (Enigma Vars) and Vaughan Williams (Sym #2) contain such examples...performance traditions founded by the composer, but not written in the score..
> The point is, no musician, conductor rigidly, dully just buries their head in the printed page to the exclusion of all else.
> But these additional musical factors are certainly real, actual items pertinent to performance....they are not abstract, philosophical concepts, or "truths" to be apprehended by some sort of mystical communion.
> I wonder if some of the confusion is based on these factors....??
> To me, conductors like Monteux and Reiner are remarkably consistent in their astute musical styles, no matter what the repertoire...they always get the "style" right...wide range of repertoire, their performances always sound "right", convincing for whatever music they are conducting.


But that's basic stuff, even for a hobbyist like me. Are you suggesting that some great conductors don't know that?

What you said does not explain how important is 0.2% error rate vs 0.1% error rate in a live performance, if such thing is measured in the first place, or if such thing can be heard by a non-musician listener.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

That doesn’t give us any reason why accuracy is important. Why should I care if the actor exactly follows the script as long as the meaning gets across? Some directors even encourage actors to improvise so it sounds natural. Assuming the audience values exact accuracy is an assertion, not a proven conclusion.

Certainly perfect accuracy can be very important to a performer interested in proving his superiority compared to his peers. But does the audience care? Does it necessarily serve the Art? Can an improvisatory feel be more important than accuracy?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes, but no one will praise an actor for following the script


Different thing....not jazz ir rock,no improvisation....
Nuts!! I had a full response typed out lost it all!! &^%[email protected]^*!!
I'll have to give you the abridged version...lol.
Re accuracy - right notes, right rhythms, good intonation, good balance within and between sections, ensemble precision- entrances, releases.... 


> 5. Where are all these standards and informations?


Tmk, there are no set quantitative standards


> 6. Why world-class musicians and books and critics almost never talk about "accuracy"?


But they always talk about technique, precision, etc....



> If musical performances are intended for the general public including non-musicians, then to what extent can listeners be expected to know "accuracy" without a score? Or are they not expected to know how "accurate" at all? If listeners cannot tell how "accurate" a performance is pass a certain point, why is it important for them to appreciate?


Listeners are perfectly free to appreciate at whatever level they choose...if they want to really delve into it, great. If they are happy with just hearing the melodies, fine....it's much like a sporting event - say gymnastics or figure skating...most people don't know all of the technical points...some do, most don't. All can enjoy the amazing talent of the participants, and appreciate it at their level.



> Do you hear the music you don't want to hear?


Not unless I'm getting paid!! $$ lol!!


----------



## Cortot

Debussy, Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Wagner, Scriabin, Haendel, Brahms, Schumann... They were all improvisers and they didn't play their own works with "accuracy". Maybe we should remove these names from classical music and put them in jazz music


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But that's basic stuff, even for a hobbyist like me. Are you suggesting that some great conductors don't know that?


They certainly should know it....sometimes they don't, or rather, can't execute it.


> What you said does not explain how important is 0.2% error rate vs 0.1% error rate in a live performance,.


No such quantitative scale exists, tmk.
Again, in a sporting event, lack of accuracy is readily apparent - the skater falls repeatedly, the gymnast comes off the balance beam, etc....with music -sloppy entrances, missed notes, poor intonation, etc....a couple here and there in live performance, not a big deal ( depending)....repeated, frequent, distracting occurrences, different matter.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That doesn't give us any reason why accuracy is important.


Improvisation is not inaccurate, and is not germane to the subject.
Accuracy is important....lack of accuracy can become most distracting in a musical performance....missed notes, poor intonation, sloppy execution....the listener begins to listen for the mistakes, rather than the music itself.



> Can an improvisatory feel be more important than accuracy?


ask the composer....does the composer want parts to be changed??


----------



## Heck148

Cortot said:


> Debussy, Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Wagner, Scriabin, Haendel, Brahms, Schumann... They were all improvisers and they didn't play their own works with "accuracy". Maybe we should remove these names from classical music and put them in jazz music


Is it accepted performance practice at present to improvise the music if these composers at a recital?? idk, I'm asking...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Improvisation is not inaccurate, and is not germane to the subject.
> Accuracy is important....lack of accuracy can become most distracting in a musical performance....missed notes, poor intonation, sloppy execution....the listener begins to listen for the mistakes, rather than the music itself.
> 
> ask the composer....does the composer want parts to be changed??


Improvisation is absolutely germane. You can tell when a conductor is being careful so as to avoid mistakes. And on the other end of the spectrum a Scherchen will just go nuts and throw caution to the wind. Some people like that.

And no one can speak for the composer. I once heard a quote attributed to Mahler: "I curse the conductor who does not do all he can to improve my music!"

Making appealing music trumps getting an A in perfection class, for many of us at least, if not most.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Improvisation is absolutely germane.


We (I) am not discussing jazz or rock....the BSO does not go on stage and improvise Mahler's 6th symphony...



> Making appealing music trumps getting an A in perfection class, for many of us at least, if not most.


I prefer BOTH....that's why I enjoy Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Solti.....i want the full boat, Not either or....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Thank you for this response!



Heck148 said:


> Tmk, there are no set quantitative standards


If "accuracy" is a qualitative concept with no set standards, then on what basis can you say R's Brahms is more "accurate" than B's Brahms as a professional opinion? What do you mean by A is more accurate than B? If it's the amount of "wrong notes", then it is a quantitative concept. To say that is bad, you need to have a standard.

I have seen the old Pollini playing Chopin a number of times with a few wrong notes (almost in every movement of Chopin's Sonata No.3), I can tell it's "inaccurate" compared to studio recordings because there are wrong notes, but I cannot conclude good or bad based on that, because there is no set standard. And there is no way to tell how that's important for the performance.



Heck148 said:


> Different thing....not jazz ir rock,no improvisation....


"In that he produced new effects, broke all the rules, used an extraordinarily wide dynamic palette, and was highly expressive in his playing, Beethoven was the direct link to the romantic pianists. Unlike the disciplined Mozart or Cramer, he played as he felt, unclassically, wrong notes and all. The chances are that he never, even at his best, was an accurate pianist, and his worst at times must have been distressingly sloppy, even before deafness set in." - Scherman, Biancolli

"He has unlimited technical skills but no schooling, and his execution is not polished, that is, his playing is not clean. He has much fire, but he pounds slightly too much; he realizes diabolical difficulties, but not entirely neatly. All the same he gave me much pleasure when improvising. He does not improvise coldly like Woelfl. He realizes whatever enters his head and he is extremely daring. Sometimes he does astonishing things." - Camille Pleyel in a letter witnessing Beethoven performing.

" In contrast, Beethoven is reported to have performed with a more pronounced finger legato, and to have used the undampened resonance of his instruments with less discrimination than his rivals. He played more forcefully than exponents of the older style, but his passagework was sometimes comparatively untidy and he lacked the poise and grace that were the hallmarks of performances by Wölfl and Hummel. His tonal range was wider, but it was perceived to be used with more brutality…" - Dr. Timothy Jones

"His extemporizations were the most extraordinary things that one could hear. No artist that I ever heard came at all near the height which Beethoven attained. The wealth of ideas which forced themselves on him, the caprices to which he surrendered himself, the variety of treatment, the difficulties, were inexhaustible." - Ferdinand Ries, Beethoven's student remembered

By "no improvisation", do you mean

A. in the professionalism of your era and of your circle, there is "no improvisation" OR
B. the entire style of performance starting from Beethoven to the prewar period is "obsolete", forever?
C. [Whatever you may add here]



Heck148 said:


> Not unless I'm getting paid!! $$ lol!!


lol to that!


----------



## Cortot

Mozart criticizes Clementi, which is known for his accuracy: "Clementi plays well. Apart from that, he has not a kreuzer's worth of taste or feeling - in short, *he is a mere mechanic*."

Chopin played the Barcarolle at his very last public concert in Paris, pianist Charles Hallé was in the audience. He wrote, "Chopin played the latter part of his Barcarolle, at the part where it demands the utmost energy, *in the most OPPOSITE style*, pianissimo, but with such wonderful nuances, that one remained in doubt if this new reading were not preferable to the accustomed one. Nobody but Chopin could have accomplished such a feat."

"Paderewski once featured 'Reflets dans l'eau' on one of his programmes. Moved by curiosity, Debussy went to the recital. He was surprised when Paderewski played this piece daintily, with charm, with refinement, and with a pearly technique that would have better befitted a set of variations by Haydn and Mozart. 'It was delightful,' he said to Paderewski. '*Not at all what I had in mind. But please do not change an iota in your interpretation!*'."

There are many examples like this.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> We (I) am not discussing jazz or rock....the BSO does not go on stage and improvise Mahler's 6th symphony...
> 
> I prefer BOTH....that's why I enjoy Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Solti.....i want the full boat, Not either or....


But you can improvise tempos, absolutely. Not everything has to be worked out exactly in advance. I'm glad I don't disqualify conductors like Furtwängler, Scherchen, Horenstein, or Barbirolli by insistence on exact perfection. I'd be depriving myself of some of the most dramatic recordings ever made. To each their own.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

If the performance style from Beethoven to Liszt and to Mahler and Wagner are all "ultra-romantic" as you have put it (certainly when compared to what Furtwangler does), then

Why isn't Furtwangler's improvisational approach more faithful to the German tradition, than Toscanini or Reiner or Szell's approach, which is the complete opposite?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If "accuracy" is a qualitative concept with no set standards, then on what basis can you say R's Brahms is more "accurate" than B's Brahms as a professional opinion?


It does have set standards - right notes, right rhythms, good intonation, balance, etc, etc, etc....
Nobody, tmk, is keeping an electronic scorecard....Olympic gymnastic judges, yes, probably....
Now, a note perfect performance, technically impeccable, with perfect accuracy, may be deadly dull if there is no phrasing, no flow, no attention to the direction of the music....it has all the musical value of someone typing a form letter with no mistakes. OTOH, a very beautifully phrased, expressively presented performance with lovely sound can have great musical value, even if there is a "boo-boo" or two.
As I've said, I want both, the accuracy, and the passionate expression, which is why I favor conductors like Reiner, Solti, Toscanini, Monteux, etc.

By "no improvisation", do you mean[/quote]
Not like jazz or rock....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> Is it accepted performance practice at present to improvise the music if these composers at a recital?? idk, I'm asking...


Is it accepted to play Mahler in the Third Reich? Is it accepted to play like Beethoven before Beethoven's time?

That's just professionalism.

Just because every conductor play it safe so that their live performances can be easily made into records for profits, does not imply that it is a good practice. (This is a hypothetical statement.)


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But you can improvise tempos, absolutely. Not everything has to be worked out exactly in advance.


Of course, Most great conductors do this.


----------



## Cortot

Who was Brahms' favorite conductor? The answer is definitive *Arthur Nikisch*. Johannes Brahms praised Nikisch's performance of his Fourth Symphony as "quite exemplary, it's impossible to hear it any better."

And then Nikisch-Furtwangler relationship:

"Arthur Nikisch had a huge impact on Wilhelm Furtwängler. The latter always considered Nikisch as his single model. Nikisch supported Furtwängler at the beginning of his career and predicted that he would be his successor."


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Why isn't Furtwangler's improvisational approach more faithful to the German tradition, than Toscanini or Reiner or Szell's approach, which is the complete opposite?


Furtwangler isn't changing notes, changing melodies or harmonies...it's frequently just sloppily executed...sloppiness is not improvisation...as in - <<my "improvisation" is to have the woodwinds fall apart at measure 287>>

And what is so sacred about the "German tradition"....?? Whoever declared that to be the Holy Scripture of music performance??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> And what is so sacred about the "German tradition"....?? Whoever declared that to be the Holy Scripture of music performance??


I dunno, maybe because it sounds better than pedantic clarity? More sonorous, more purposeful, more...human?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> It does have set standards - right notes, right rhythms, good intonation, balance, etc, etc, etc....
> Nobody, tmk, is keeping an electronic scorecard....Olympic gymnastic judges, yes, probably....
> Now, a note perfect performance, technically impeccable, with perfect accuracy, may be deadly dull if there is no phrasing, no flow, no attention to the direction of the music....it has all the musical value of someone typing a form letter with no mistakes. OTOH, a very beautifully phrased, expressively presented performance with lovely sound can have great musical value, even if there is a "boo-boo" or two.
> As I've said, I want both, the accuracy, and the passionate expression, which is why I favor conductors like Reiner, Solti, Toscanini, Monteux, etc.
> 
> By "no improvisation", do you mean Not like jazz or rock....


This is fair and I respect your opinion and professionalism, I feel the same sometimes. To many jade listeners, accuracy is just not the primary concern anymore.

Listeners in the information age have the luxury to listen to the same piece many more times than composers of the past, yet the variation seems to be getting narrower in the current generation (Rattle, Salonen, Muti). It is only natural that listeners or the audience want more.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> sloppiness is not improvisation...as in - <<my "improvisation" is to have the woodwinds fall apart at measure 287>>


From what I have read, sloppiness is exactly the product of his improvisational approach.

His early 20s-30s recordings are surprisingly "clean" and much closer to Toscanini's style.



Heck148 said:


> And what is so sacred about the "German tradition"....?? Whoever declared that to be the Holy Scripture of music performance??


No one is saying that the German tradition is sacred. But it is still true that Furtwangler's style is more faithful to that tradition.

A person can be faithful to Scientology without Scientology being widely regarded as sacred.

You are free to think that the Romantic tradition is bad, but then the problem of "being faithful to the composer" becomes more subtle.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

The following quote from Ries, shows what's missing in many of today's performances



> Beethoven was highly satisfied with my composition and changed little. There was, however, one very brilliant and difficult passage which he liked but which seemed too daring, and he therefore instructed me to compose another one. Eight days before the performance he wished to hear the cadenza again. I played [the same one] and again smudged the passage; again, somewhat irritated, he told me to change it. [This time] I did, but the new one did not satisfy me. I therefore practiced the other one most assiduously, *without being able to become absolutely certain of it*. In the public concert…I could not convince myself to choose the easier one; when I then launched brazenly into the more difficult one, Beethoven jerked violently in his chair. Nevertheless it worked perfectly and Beethoven was so overjoyed that he shouted loudly 'bravo!' This electrified the entire audience and gave me instantly a position among the artists. Afterwards, as he expressed his satisfaction to me, he added: 'But you are obstinate all the same. Had you missed that passage I would never have given you another lesson again.


Consistency is the result of risk minimization, the opposite of risk-taking. To take risk means to embrace the possibility and eventuality of making egregious mistakes. This is what's missing in the "perfect execution" approach.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I dunno, maybe because it sounds better than pedantic clarity? More sonorous, more purposeful, more...human?


Pedantic clarity?? That would be leinsdorf, konwitschny, Hollreiser, etc??
The Teutonic stuff can get too ponderous, bloated....


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> From what I have read, sloppiness is exactly the product of his improvisational approach.


Doesn't need to be tho...Toscanini, and Reiner, esp could be quite spontaneous, but he had the stick trchnique to bring it off precisely. 


> No one is saying that the German tradition is sacred. But it is still true that Furtwangler's style is more faithful to that tradition.


Of course...


> You are free to think that the Romantic tradition is bad, but then the problem of "being faithful to the composer" becomes more subtle.


I don't think it is "bad". WF is certainly not bad....he gets lots of excitement, definitely aims for the drama, the big moments....the lack of precision, the falling apart at critical moments is distracting to me....as far as being faithful to the composer....play what's in the score...


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> to take risks.....


A lot of that has to do with present day audition and performance practice, the musicians themselves....I've always loved the risk-taker musicians..the guys who swing for the fences!! Chicago, NYPO, NBC, LSO, VPO - great stuff...these guys go after it!!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

As regarding the attitude toward "literalism" and "ideal", I quote Furtwangler:



> Literal rendering plays a major role in the practice and reception of music today . . . and [p]lacing the creator above the private person is naturally quite self-evident, . . . [but it is mistaken] to propagate literal rendering as such as an "ideal." If it is an ideal, it is at best a pedantic one.


So this show Furtwangler was

1. embracing literal rendering as "placing the creator above the private person"
2. not an idealist because "at best a pedantic one"
3. did not approve literalism as an ideal


----------



## Guest

Searching for UTM's quote in #1680, I came across the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture. Anyone know of this?

They post three extracts from different versions of Beethoven's 4th to compare approaches, including WF's.

https://www.ffrcc.org/daily-dose-of...-be-replicated-200-years-later-by-a-professor

Last night, I watched -and enjoyed - Prom 50: Riveting Beethoven [5th Symphony] from Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla and the CBSO

(It was being reshown as part of this year's Proms programme to celebrate LvB's 250th birthday.)

Frankly, modern performers need our help at the moment, and I'd rather hear other versions of this old warhorse than stick to alleged classics.

(I presume someone already referred to the outcome of the BBC Music poll of 100 conductors from 2011? This listed Furtwangler as 7th (Toscanini was 8th) and the summary for WF referred to a number of the features of his style that have emerged in this and other discussions.)


----------



## Heck148

Cortot said:


> Who was Brahms' favorite conductor? The answer is definitive *Arthur Nikisch*. Johannes Brahms praised Nikisch's performance of his Fourth Symphony as "quite exemplary, it's impossible to hear it any better."


But he hadn't heard the stellar versions by Toscanini and Reiner!! It's interesting to speculate how he would have liked the tremendous drama and power....
.....


----------



## Eclectic Al

Sometimes it seems like there is a sense above that wrong notes or blatant loss of ensemble or other distortions are positively desirable - not an unfortunate consequence of chasing a great performance. 
Can we pursue that?

So a question for the "accept errors" camp. Do you find that the existence of errors improves the performance for you, because errors themselves provide evidence of the pursuit of greatness which is occurring? That is, if you aren't on the edge you aren't trying, and evidence that you are on the edge comes from failures in performance. I frequently read in reviews that at some point you can hear the string tone go ugly or a messed up chord on a piano (say) provide evidence of strain (and it is clear the review is not talking about deliberate attempts to introduce an edge of some sort for effect): this comment is fairly often made approvingly.

A follow up where we are talking about recordings and wrong notes. If it was possible to manipulate a recording after the event so that wrong notes were corrected and it was impossible to tell whether or not this had been done (or the note had been correct in the first place) then would you prefer the "corrected" version? Remember: the manipulation is so good that no one in the world can detect it, and you don't know, for any particular performance, whether it has been used or not. Also, I am talking about wrong notes. If it pleases you to suggest that a certain variation in precise tuning is natural and correcting everything to an inhuman level would sound unnatural then I am pleased to tell you that the software is sufficiently sophisticated to leave an absolutely normal sense of a degree of tolerance around theoretical perfection.


----------



## Guest

Whilst I prefer to hear an orchestra or performer play 'accurately', I remember that to err is human; to forgive, divine.

Seriously though, I'm usually more interested in the interpretation than the accuracy. Having said that, if the timpani muff their lines at the end of Sibelius' 5th, say, it's more than a little distracting. So, no, errors in themselves don't improve, but they may not detract either. It depends on the degree of error of course.


----------



## vincula

Eclectic Al said:


> Sometimes it seems like there is a sense above that wrong notes or blatant loss of ensemble or other distortions are positively desirable - not an unfortunate consequence of chasing a great performance.
> Can we pursue that?
> 
> So a question for the "accept errors" camp. Do you find that the existence of errors improves the performance for you, because errors themselves provide evidence of the pursuit of greatness which is occurring? That is, if you aren't on the edge you aren't trying, and evidence that you are on the edge comes from failures in performance. I frequently read in reviews that at some point you can hear the string tone go ugly or a messed up chord on a piano (say) provide evidence of strain (and it is clear the review is not talking about deliberate attempts to introduce an edge of some sort for effect): this comment is fairly often made approvingly.
> 
> A follow up where we are talking about recordings and wrong notes. If it was possible to manipulate a recording after the event so that wrong notes were corrected and it was impossible to tell whether or not this had been done (or the note had been correct in the first place) then would you prefer the "corrected" version? Remember: the manipulation is so good that no one in the world can detect it, and you don't know, for any particular performance, whether it has been used or not. Also, I am talking about wrong notes. If it pleases you to suggest that a certain variation in precise tuning is natural and correcting everything to an inhuman level would sound unnatural then I am pleased to tell you that the software is sufficiently sophisticated to leave an absolutely normal sense of a degree of tolerance around theoretical perfection.


I entirely agree on this. There so many examples of it. That's why I usually prefer live recordings. I've got personal experience from studio recording and I can tell you than many musicians and ensembles won't ever sound in concert like they do on cd. Sometimes the number of takes ends up being totally ridiculous. It's much cheaper nowadays. You don't waste tape. Multitrack. Mix & match. Incredible software... Tell everybody they must record two-track direct to an analogue tape in one take and you'll see what it comes out. A few musicians though the exit door to start with.

Maybe that's what we must think of when criticising live recordings from the 40's or 50's. Perhaps we should redefine what technical limitations are. Are they actually "limiting"? We all learn through trial and error. The path to excellence's a learning process too.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## mikeh375

vincula said:


> I entirely agree on this. There so many examples of it. That's why I usually prefer live recordings. I've got personal experience from studio recording and I can tell you than many musicians and ensembles won't ever sound in concert like they do on cd. Sometimes the number of takes ends up being totally ridiculous. It's much cheaper nowadays. You don't waste tape. Multitrack. Mix & match. Incredible software... Tell everybody they must record two-track direct to an analogue tape in one take and you'll see what it comes out. A few musicians though the exit door to start with.
> 
> Maybe that's what we must think of when criticising live recordings from the 40's or 50's. Perhaps we should redefine what technical limitations are. Are they actually "limiting"? We all learn through trial and error. The path to excellence's a learning process too.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


I use the software every day and have edited in front of fine musicians who, despite seeing me do it right in front of them, cannot hear the edit.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> So a question for the "accept errors" camp. Do you find that the existence of errors improves the performance for you, because errors themselves provide evidence of the pursuit of greatness which is occurring?


Errors are bad, that's why they are realized bad outcomes of a risk. If errors are good, then there will be no risk to take.



Eclectic Al said:


> That is, if you aren't on the edge you aren't trying, and evidence that you are on the edge comes from failures in performance.


No, you can tell whether the failure comes from risk-taking or comes from recklessness or comes from sloppiness.

Failure is not desirable by anyone. The risk-taking needs to have a payoff to justify occasional failures.

A couple of wrong notes is not a failure for a great musician, IMO.



Eclectic Al said:


> If it was possible to manipulate a recording after the event so that wrong notes were corrected and it was impossible to tell whether or not this had been done (or the note had been correct in the first place) then would you prefer the "corrected" version?


What you have said is already prevalent. That's why I personally prefer concerts and live performances, and play with/for my friends. It's not just about music, it's about people communicating through music.

Karajan and Gould would certainly agree with you, but Furtwangler, Celibidache, and Sokolov would not agree, for philosophical and ethical reasons. The great Zimerman made many "perfect" recordings but later refuse to do that anymore. I don't want to go into the details about why, if you are really interested, I am sure you can find them.

You can also look into the Joyce Hatto recording scandal for an interesting perspective on "completely engineered recordings".


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> Having said that, if the timpani muff their lines at the end of Sibelius' 5th, say, it's more than a little distracting. So, no, errors in themselves don't improve, but they may not detract either. It depends on the degree of error of course.


That's my sort of position really. I am a casual, lay listener, so I wouldn't even necessarily know what was right and wrong - I'm certainly not going to trot off and compare against a score. I just want to enjoy listening to what is presented to me.

However, if I am familiar with a piece and a recording of a particular performance has a glaring defect then I will likely never listen to it again. The problem is that once I have noticed it I can never forget it, and if I listen again I will spend the whole performance waiting for the blot.

I feel the same about humming - little is more irritating. Background noises in a recording of a live performance can also have the same effect, but humming is way more irritating because I take it as self-indulgent, look-at-me, behaviour - maybe unfairly).


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Errors are bad, that's why they are realized bad outcomes of a risk. If errors are good, then there will be no risk to take.
> 
> What you have said is already prevalent. That's why I personally prefer concerts and live performances, and play with/for my friends. It's not just about music, it's about people communicating through music.


This is the point I want to investigate.

At the top here you acknowledge that errors are bad, but maybe they are a price you have to pay if artists are taking risk

However, when I talk about the possibility of the artist taking the risk in their performance, but you not having to pay the price in terms of error (because it can be fixed undetectably), then in the second quoted section above you seem to want to have to pay the price.

I am therefore taking it that hearing the error is an important matter for you in creating the feeling that this was a full-throated, risk-taking performance. You seem to feel that hearing the errors is a part of the inter-personal communication which matters to you.

This does raise an interesting question that if another performer was so good that they can play the performance in an equally full-throated way as the first, but without making the mistakes (- ie instead of the mistakes being corrected by software they were absent because of better technique - or just good luck in that particular performance) would that be worse? If not, then why would fixing it with software make it worse? (Again, I'm assuming that all you have is recordings, and you don't know what was done for any one recording - manipulated or not.) What I'm imagining is that the possibility that the manipulation may have occurred might smack of inauthenticity to you, and you might want a recording to have a guarantee that it has not be manipulated. Is that part of the point?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that; I'm just exploring.


----------



## vincula

mikeh375 said:


> I use the software every day and have edited in front of fine musicians who, despite seeing me do it right in front of them, cannot hear the edit.


Nothing against editing or top-notch studio work, mate. Since you've got every day experience, than you'd know the difference between minor editing, which basically does not interfere the "organic" conception against what could be seen as "patching" different bits and fragments together and then call it something which basically never happened in the first place. Guess you do know what I'm talking about and can tell the difference between those two attitudes. I know what I prefer.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Malx

Eclectic Al said:


> That's my sort of position really. I am a casual, lay listener, so I wouldn't even necessarily know what was right and wrong - I'm certainly not going to trot off and compare against a score. I just want to enjoy listening to what is presented to me.
> 
> However, if I am familiar with a piece and a recording of a particular performance has a glaring defect then I will likely never listen to it again. The problem is that once I have noticed it I can never forget it, and if I listen again I will spend the whole performance waiting for the blot.
> 
> *I feel the same about humming - little is more irritating. Background noises in a recording of a live performance can also have the same effect, but humming is way more irritating because I take it as self-indulgent, look-at-me, behaviour - maybe unfairly).*


Whilst I can understand why 'humming' can be irritating I don't agree with your idea of it being 'self indulgent'. I try and see it in a more positive way - the performer is in the zone and is enjoying the music making, surely not a bad thing.


----------



## mikeh375

vincula said:


> Nothing against editing or top-notch studio work, mate. Since you've got every day experience, than you'd know the difference between minor editing, which basically does not interfere the "organic" conception against what could be seen as "patching" different bits and fragments together and then call it something which basically never happened in the first place. Guess you do know what I'm talking about and can tell the difference between those two attitudes. I know what I prefer.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Yes Vincula I see your two positions. Here's a thing though, if I played a recording to a listener that was an edit of the second type in your post, they may well not guess as such, depending on the quality and consistency of the performers. if the performers are top notch, then takes are remarkably consistent in all the crucial things like tone, dynamics, tempo etc. and it becomes so easy to digitally manipulate even single notes.
In practice, I've never had to edit a performance so bad and to such an extent that it qualifies as a new digital only performance. Btw, I'm actually a composer and not an engineer/editor, but I have and can use, pro software that includes the tools necessary. My editing has been on my own music's live recorded performances.


----------



## vincula

mikeh375 said:


> In practice, I've never had to edit a performance so bad and to such an extent that it qualifies as a new digital only performance. Btw, I'm actually a composer and not an engineer/editor, but I have pro software that includes the tools necessary. My editing has been on my own music's live recorded performances.


Great then. Congratulations! Keep up the good work. My world's jazz and improvisation. I play sax (baritone almost exclusively). I do know many studio situations in which the concept "improvisation" has simply disappeared and one ends up listening to a product. Happens especially when we have to work with non-jazz musicians, but not only. Sounds perfect to some. To me some of it sounds like looking at the beauty of a desiccated flower.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## mikeh375

vincula said:


> Great then. Congratulations! Keep up the good work. My world's jazz and improvisation. I play sax (baritone almost exclusively). I do know many studio situations in which the concept "improvisation" has simply disappeared and one ends up listening to a product. Happens especially when we have to work with non-jazz musicians, but not only. Sounds perfect to some. To me some of it sounds like looking at the beauty of a desiccated flower.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


I see your point. I started out on jazz guitar and nothing beats the feeling of live improv, the risk, the exposure, the sheer balls it takes at times to just go for it. It's always down to the arrangements when disciplines are mixed with jazzers and straight players I feel.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. Some of us think the movement really _is_ too long. And have you ever heard a performance that takes all the marked repeats? The symphony uncut is an hour long! If I were a string player having to repeat that little galloping figure over and over I'd want to commit suicide. Just listening through it has me trying to remember how to tie a noose.


An hour in heaven is better than 50 minutes there.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> But he hadn't heard the stellar versions by Toscanini and Reiner!! It's interesting to speculate how he would have liked the tremendous drama and power....
> .....


He probably would have reacted similarly to Furtwangler, who found the American orchestral tradition to be superficially preoccupied with brilliant sound, technical perfection, and clarity, and missing the feeling of depth you get from the Furtwangler-Klemperer-Bohm-Jochum line. You don't impress Beethoven or Brahms by cutting out the heart of what makes the music great and focusing on the superficial.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You don't impress Beethoven or Brahms by cutting out the heart of what makes the music great and focusing on the superficial.


We'll never know, but in any case, it has no relevance to Toscanini, Reiner.


----------



## Eclectic Al

In terms of recordings of (say) the Eroica which is most Furtwanglerish and which is most Toscanini-like among recordings made since 1980. Let me know and I will listen to both, and I'll tell you who's better - objectively. :tiphat:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> I am therefore taking it that hearing the error is an important matter for you in creating the feeling that this was a full-throated, risk-taking performance. You seem to feel that hearing the errors is a part of the inter-personal communication which matters to you.


This is possible. I think this is a good point. Defects can be good but only in a very specific way. In Eastern aesthetics, imperfections do make art more natural and human. Appreciation for imperfections (unintentional) can be sophisticated.



Eclectic Al said:


> This does raise an interesting question that if another performer was so good that they can play the performance in an equally full-throated way as the first, but without making the mistakes (- ie instead of the mistakes being corrected by software they were absent because of better technique - or just good luck in that particular performance) would that be worse? If not, then why would fixing it with software make it worse? (Again, I'm assuming that all you have is recordings, and you don't know what was done for any one recording - manipulated or not.) What I'm imagining is that the possibility that the manipulation may have occurred might smack of inauthenticity to you, and you might want a recording to have a guarantee that it has not be manipulated. Is that part of the point?


In your thought experiment, it would be better to have a "full-throated" performance without the mistakes. This is Heck's point of getting the best of both worlds. But if you are consistent without mistakes, then either you have reached the very peak of technical perfection (like Heifetz) or you are not trying hard enough. Reaching the peak of technical perfection suggests a life of obsessive practicing (but it won't last long) and an absence of vulnerability. Both of which can be aesthetically undesirable (or desirable).

A heavily manipulated recording is by definition "inauthentic" (in the existentialist sense, that it's not true to oneself), and can be dishonest (because listeners are under the impression that the performer is better than who he/she really were), regardless of whether or not listeners can tell the difference. I am sure many don't mind but the point is many do mind. If in the liner note, the sound engineer lists all manipulations I am not sure some listeners would still enjoy it to the same degree. Let me show you a thought experiment:

Would you want to hear a nobody who has poor techniques and poor taste in art to play the piano, if the sound engineer manipulate the recordings to make it sound exactly like Pollini, provided such technology exists?

If the answer is yes, then ultimately performance is redundant for you with the perfect sound engineering (which is not good news for musicians). If the answer is no, then performance still matters for you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> In terms of recordings of (say) the Eroica which is most Furtwanglerish and which is most Toscanini-like among recordings made since 1980. Let me know and I will listen to both, and I'll tell you who's better - objectively. :tiphat:


For Furtwängler, the closest would be Barenboim with the Staatskapelle Dresden.

For Toscanini, try Honeck with the Pittsburgh Symphony.

.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Would you want to hear a nobody who has poor techniques and poor taste in art to play the piano, if the sound engineer manipulate the recordings to make it sound exactly like Pollini, provided such technology exists?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then ultimately performance is redundant for you with the perfect sound engineering (which is not good news for musicians). If the answer is no, then performance still matters for you.


A good question. I don't know: I think the answer is a qualified yes.
The qualification is that I want some variety. I don't believe in an absolute ideal, as I believe different people have different perspectives to offer on what is the same piece (without getting philosophically pedantic about "same").

In order for a piece to sound like Pollini then one would need to know what Pollini sounded like, so Pollini must have provided some benchmarks of Pollini-ness. That having been done, it's a problem for Pollini's earnings if anyone can be made to sound like him (- as you imply; it seems to resemble a copyright problem).

I suppose I am saying that I want personality in performance, but I'm quite happy if any "errors" inherent in the delivery of that performance can be ironed out. For example, if each recording was regarded as a 2-stage process: (1) record the performance as well as you can, and (2) fix any errors, with the performer involved at all stages and OK-ing the result artistically (as "better" than the original), then that sounds pretty good to me - with a reasonable degree of integrity assumed among all parties.


----------



## Heck148

You have to remember that no recording is perfect...there is always something....many errors will be virtually undetectable except to the most experienced and/or focused listener...often it will be very subtle...an entrance or release not together, a slight error in intonation that is soon corrected. Perhaps an obscure horn note that is cracked...there is always something. Many people believe that recordings can be patched, edited infinitely, but this is not really the case....recording sessions are run strictly by the clock....at some point, musicians, engineers simply run out of time and $$...
If the basic recorded material is poor, it is highly unlikely that this can be processed into a great recording.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> You have to remember that no recording is perfect...there is always something....many errors will be virtually undetectable except to the most experienced and/or focused listener...often it will be very subtle...an entrance or release not together, a slight error in intonation that is soon corrected. Perhaps an obscure horn note that is cracked...there is always something. Many people believe that recordings can be patched, edited infinitely, but this is not really the case....recording sessions are run strictly by the clock....at some point, musicians, engineers simply run out of time and $$...
> If the basic recorded material is poor, it is highly unlikely that this can be processed into a great recording.


You have missed the point of a thought experiment (which is meant to be hypothetical).

They can all be fixed in time. It's a matter of technology and it's inevitable.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> A good question. I don't know: I think the answer is a qualified yes.
> The qualification is that I want some variety. I don't believe in an absolute ideal, as I believe different people have different perspectives to offer on what is the same piece (without getting philosophically pedantic about "same").
> 
> In order for a piece to sound like Pollini then one would need to know what Pollini sounded like, so Pollini must have provided some benchmarks of Pollini-ness. That having been done, it's a problem for Pollini's earnings if anyone can be made to sound like him (- as you imply; it seems to resemble a copyright problem).
> 
> I suppose I am saying that I want personality in performance, but I'm quite happy if any "errors" inherent in the delivery of that performance can be ironed out. For example, if each recording was regarded as a 2-stage process: (1) record the performance as well as you can, and (2) fix any errors, with the performer involved at all stages and OK-ing the result artistically (as "better" than the original), then that sounds pretty good to me - with a reasonable degree of integrity assumed among all parties.


Personality has nothing to do with the problem.

With (close to) perfect sound engineering, we can make anything sound like anything.

We are not far away from that.


----------



## JAS

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Personality has nothing to do with the problem.
> 
> With (close to) perfect sound engineering, we can make anything sound like anything.
> 
> We are not far away from that.


I suspect that even modern engineering could not make my voice sound like I was actually singing instead of strangling. There are limits.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

JAS said:


> I suspect that even modern engineering could not make my voice sound like I was actually singing instead of strangling. There are limits.


Not with artificial intelligence. In fact, your sound is not even necessary, if singing is what people want. The synthesized sound/performance can be indistinguishable from real performance in the near future (such technology might already exists), and can be machine-generated. The problem is not the technology, but not enough people would care/invest current technology for it to take place soon (CM is a heavily subsidized industry).

You may have perhaps heard of the "Deepfake", 12 years old can now use such technology at a home computer to fabricate videos, changing Obama into Putin, that's indistinguishable for the viewer (and it's a really primitive technology). In terms of the amount of information, there is nothing special about sound, there is less digital information in the sound than in the video. Current AI can already fill-in-blank of photos, increase resolution without base information, color black and white photos, and one day we will hear all the mono recordings in perfect digital stereo sound (such technology already exists). People just don't care enough about classical music.

In my view, there is no future for artists who draw realistically, and the situation for musicians is, unfortunately, is not so different, unless there is a high demand for live performances. It starts to make less and less economic sense nowadays to record a live/studio performance for a film score than using synthesized orchestra. The demand for organic sound will continue to fall, and sooner or later it will be replaced with synthesized sounds that sound even more organic, generated from millions of samples of "organic sound". And given how similar performances are on recordings, it won't be difficult for AI to imitate them with certain variations, they can do far greater things.

Humans are just not that good at being "perfect".


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> For Furtwängler, the closest would be Barenboim with the Staatskapelle Dresden.
> 
> For Toscanini, try Honeck with the Pittsburgh Symphony.
> 
> .


I'm happy to have a go if (1) it doesn't cost me to access them and (2) someone from the "opposing camp" doesn't challenge the choices. :lol:


----------



## JAS

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Not with artificial intelligence. In fact, your sound is not even necessary, if singing is what people want. The synthesized sound/performance can be indistinguishable from real performance in the near future (such technology might already exists), and can be machine-generated. The problem is not the technology, but not enough people would care/invest current technology for it to take place soon (CM is a heavily subsidized industry).


In which case it would not be me singing at all, which is actually a good thing as I believe that it is against state law for me to sing even in the shower.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

JAS said:


> In which case it would not be me singing at all, which is actually a good thing.


You still can, all that's needed is to apply a certain "transformation", just like what voice changer does, but more sophisticated. All that's needed is for the AI to "imagine" (fill-in-the-blank) what your voice would be like if you are Caruso or Sutherland. It's like Deepfaking your face to look like Ryan Gosling or Margot Robbie (unless you are more beautiful than Ryan Gosling).

It's still your singing in a way, Caruso or Sutherland wouldn't have sang it, you can feel great about that.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Personality has nothing to do with the problem.
> 
> With (close to) perfect sound engineering, we can make anything sound like anything.
> 
> We are not far away from that.


Fine by me then. Almost.

However, the question then arises of what we WANT it to sound like. I still cling to the view that a human creative impulse will continue to add something in terms of that, and the variety of that. (It's what I meant by personality.)

Once we have that human creativity in the picture I'm happy to have it cleaned up technologically.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Fine by me then. Almost.
> 
> However, the question then arises of what we WANT it to sound like. I still cling to the view that a human creative impulse will continue to add something in terms of that, and the variety of that. (It's what I meant by personality.)
> 
> Once we have that human creativity in the picture I'm happy to have it cleaned up technologically.


There is already a lot of music albums that are completely synthesized. There is human creativity, but no performance.


----------



## vincula

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Humans are just not that good at being "perfect".


And that's because we are humans. In Latin _Per-fect_ means completely/absolutely-done. Life's always _im-per-fect_. That's why we love live performances.

Some might call them perfect -only 'cause all players are dead, but I think they come _perfectly_ alive again through us 

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Eclectic Al

vincula said:


> And that's because we are humans. In Latin _Per-fect_ means completely/absolutely-done. Life's always _im-per-fect_. That's why we love live performances.
> 
> Some might call them perfect -only 'cause all players are dead, but I think they come _perfectly_ alive again through us
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


It great being imperfect isn't it!

One thing that people love to forget is that we are evolved animal organisms. It seems to make some feel more important to imagine that we are walking computers, only reliant on our bodies in the same way that a computer needs some physical stuff to work with and some power to let it run. Well you can play games of comparing brains with computers if you like, but our brains are globs of stuff floating around in a bath of chemicals, subject to all sorts of influences. And our minds are another thing again: letting you feel like a computer sometimes, but at others being pulled to get down and dirty in the grubbiness of hunger, thirst, lust, pain.

Where does the glory of human existence lie? It's certainly not in being a sort of erratic computer, seeking some ideal of computed perfection in music or anything else. It comes from your drives and your preferences, the things you feel. Music is glorious because we enjoy it; we don't enjoy it because it is glorious in itself.


----------



## JAS

One of the interesting things about being imperfect is that many of my best ideas have come about in part due to an error, and not necessarily even my own error.


----------



## RogerWaters

Eclectic Al said:


> Where does the glory of human existence lie? It's certainly not in being a sort of erratic computer, seeking some ideal of computed perfection in music or anything else. It comes from your drives and your preferences, the things you feel. Music is glorious because we enjoy it; we don't enjoy it because it is glorious in itself.


Do you think then that shooting heroin is glorious? Or would you insist that, on a 'higher level', you would not actually enjoy heroin, despite enjoying it on a 'lower level'? The complexity then becomes defending the categories of 'higher' pleasures and 'lower' ones in a way that does appeal to something like glory.

I agree with your general gist, though.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> Do you think then that shooting heroin is glorious? Or would you insist that, on a 'higher level', you would not actually enjoy heroin, despite enjoying it on a 'lower level'? The complexity then becomes defending the categories of 'higher' pleasures and 'lower' ones in a way that does appeal to something like glory.
> 
> I agree with your general gist, though.


Well there's glory in our physical reality; and there is also stuff which is less than glorious. Discussing mind-altering substances would be an interesting angle on all this. One thing I would say, though, is that the impact of such substances on us supports my general thesis that we should not forget the importance of our physical reality in shaping our conscious (and something beyond conscious) thoughts and feelings. Trying to separate things like music into a separate category seems to me to be misleading. Hasn't your heart rate been affected by music, and mightn't the feedback also be in the other direction in terms of affecting you response to a piece of music.

I wasn't trying to argue that everything physical is glorious: the point of my rant was to challenge the idea that the glorious stuff is somehow separated from our physical animal reality, and is above that. I don't think that trying to argue for such a separation places something "above" anyway: it just makes it less connected to the reality of our existence.

As you say, I'm not sure we're far apart on all this.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> One thing that people love to forget is that we are evolved animal organisms. It seems to make some feel more important to imagine that we are walking computers, only reliant on our bodies in the same way that a computer needs some physical stuff to work with and some power to let it run.


Computers and algorithms or features of the algorithm (genetic algorithm) evolve too, at a faster pace than human biology.

You do know that current-day physics can be seen in terms of information and computation of information? The universe is a (quantum) computer.



Eclectic Al said:


> the point of my rant was to challenge the idea that the glorious stuff is somehow separated from our physical animal reality, and is above that. I don't think that trying to argue for such a separation places something "above" anyway





Eclectic Al said:


> Where does the glory of human existence lie? It's certainly not in being a sort of erratic computer, seeking some ideal of computed perfection in music or anything else. It comes from your drives and your preferences, the things you feel.


If you believe that fundamental physical laws explain everything, then you are not just a materialist but a reductionist, which implies that your feeling (you drives and your preferences) about Mozart has nothing special (or glorious), certainly not more special (or glorious) than shooting Heroin, like Roger has suggested, when viewed in terms of physical activities of electrical signals in your brain.



Eclectic Al said:


> Music is glorious because we enjoy it; we don't enjoy it because it is glorious in itself.


Violence is glorious because we enjoy it; we don't enjoy it because it is glorious in itself.


----------



## Eclectic Al

You do know that I don't enjoy violence?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> You do know that I don't enjoy violence?


It's not about you. The argument "X is glorious because some people enjoy X" is not great. But if that's what you like to think, I am perfectly fine with it and happy for you.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not about you. The argument "X is glorious because some people enjoy X" is not great. But if that's what you like to think, I am perfectly fine with it and happy for you.


You may have noticed that when I referred to music, I referred to "we"; when I referred to the somewhat unconvincing parallel with violence I used the word "I". Or you may not. I'm perfectly fine with it.

Anyway, music is a "we" thing, culturally shaped. If "I" could have a buzzing in my head of my own, with no cultural connection, then it might be something, but it wouldn't be music. It would be more the sort of thing that might be going on in the heads of those sad individuals one might see rocking themselves in mental hospitals. They may (although I think it's unlikely) be getting a lot of pleasure from the buzzing, but it isn't music as I construe it.

When it comes to violence there are culturally shaped forms of violence (say, boxing, or indeed contact sports like American Football) which many would see as glorious. When violence is not culturally shaped (and occurs outside the norms of the society) it has the tendency of an "I" violence, rather than a "we" sport. Going back to RogerWaters' heroin point, mind-altering drugs which are taken as part of an evolved social ritual can indeed be culturally important, whereas outside that context the tendency is perhaps more that they can be dangerous and destructive.

The glory I am really referring to is in large part the way in which an individual animal can commune with others though a culturally-shaped experience such as music (or, in its different way, a sporting event or perhaps a religiously-inspired drug-taking ceremony).


----------



## vmartell

I think the conversation have moved in strange ways from the title - but that said, want to make sure this is added to it:






The wonderful David Hurwitz chimes in...

v


----------



## hammeredklavier

A charismatic, competent conductor.
A recent, thoughtfully-written post by Josquin13, in another thread, mentions the conductor dozens of times, and has inspired me to watch 




again, and I'm still amazed by the performance.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Wow it was a year ago this was dormant. Hadn't felt long enough.


----------



## Knorf

Phil loves classical said:


> Wow it was a year ago this was dormant. Hadn't felt long enough.


If only it were more like 17-year cicadas...


----------



## Becca

Knorf said:


> If only it were more like 17-year cicadas...


As the person who started this thread, all I say is 'Yay, verily'. I think that I will ask that it be closed.


----------



## Knorf

Becca said:


> As the person who started this thread, all I say is 'Yay, verily'. I think that I will ask that it be closed.


I blame you not at all, Becca.


----------

