# Bernstein and Klemperer



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

No, this is not one of those 'is A better than B' threads (get real, you don't think that _*I *_would do something like that, do you? :lol: )

At first Leonard Bernstein and Otto Klemperer would seem like a real odd couple, there isn't a lot that they have in common, and yet...

Last evening I was doing some Spotify sleuthing in 20th century American music, Copland, Chavez, etc., etc. When I got to Bernstein's later (DG) recording of Copland's 3rd, I was quite struck at how slow it was compared to his earlier version. Now I am not someone who listens to much Bernstein but I am aware of how some of his later recordings really slowed down substantially from earlier efforts. As a confirmed Klempererphile, I found it fascinating that the general attitude towards Klemperer's later, slower interpretations are generally disdained whereas with Bernstein they seem to be favorably viewed. Anyone care to comment on this?


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

Love Klemperer's recordings, and while I'm aware his running times can be significantly longer than others, I never find them sluggish or ponderous.

You say this is a "late" style for him? Do you know when it began or developed?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

SimonNZ said:


> Love Klemperer's recordings, and while I'm aware his running times can be significantly longer than others, I never find them sluggish or ponderous.
> 
> You say this is a "late" style for him? Do you know when it began or developed?


There was no particular point when it happened but you can certainly see a significant difference between his mid 50's Beethoven and the cycle which was done a few years later. During the 60s it became more pronounced but not always, e.g. his Mahler 2nd is one of the faster ones on disc. I haven't sampled much of his recordings from Los Angeles in the late 30's and his early post war recordings but what I have heard is generally consistent.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

I have pretty much every recording from both Klemperer and Bernstein. In general I haven't found that Lenny's later recordings are more favorable. I personally find most of Lenny's earlier recordings with New York Philharmonic to be preferred due to his sense of wonder and excitement and pure rawness at times, not necessarily tempo. Klemperer for me was always more about momentum. That's why his slower tempos have never mattered all that much to me. He still retained a great flow throughout his recordings and he built momentum where the works sounded like a moving mountain!


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I agree with realdealblues re Bernstein. I own both recordings he made of Copland's Third that the OP mentioned and the earlier one is much better; more vital and alive. I also prefer his earlier Beethoven, Brahms, etc. generally. However what he brought to his later Mahler was very special and I would be loathe to be without those DG recordings.

I haven't listened to Klemperer as much so I'm not really qualified to comment.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Klemperer was very much in fashion as a Beethoven interpreter during his heyday with the Philarmonia. His Bach (St MatthrewPassion especially) was looked upon with awe as THE way to do it. How fashions in critical opinion change!


----------

