# Is George Szell one of your favorite conductors?



## Itullian

If yes, why do you like him.
I find him kind of cold and unyielding.
Tell me about Szell.
:tiphat:


----------



## Fabulin

The perfectionist in me enjoys his clarity and precision.


----------



## Bulldog

He's not one of my favorites, but I like him a lot for his direct approach with no over-emoting.


----------



## mbhaub

No, and I don't know why since virtually every recording of his that I have is exemplary. Schumann, Beethoven, Brahms - top notch. He even was brilliant with the Russian repertoire: a Tchaikovsky 1st piano concerto with Graffman is, as the reviews said, "Pure Gold". Even the 5th symphony is way above average (never mind that silly added cymbal crash). The Mahler 4th is one of the best. Then there's that incendiary Sibelius 2 on EMI. But there's something that seems calculated in his music making that's hard to pin down. Can something be too perfect?


----------



## Highwayman

No he is not. But I generally like him when he does 20th century stuff like Bartók or Walton and I wish he had done more of those. I don`t like the rest, especially Brahms and Schumann but he definitely knew his way with music and I respect his idiosyncratic approach.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'll be the outlier and say yes, I do like Szell. I even have the big Szell box. I like precision, so his conducting appeals to me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

He’s a technician. His interpretations are reliably paced, but he barely skims the surface of the great symphonies.

I prefer him in shorter works that stress orchestral color and execution.


----------



## MarkW

He was really talented and good at getting his orchestra to do what he wanted. Whether what he wanted was to your taste is up to you. Personal favorites: Mahler 4, Mozart Haffner Symphony, Beethoven concerti with Fleischer, Brahms B-flat with Serkin, Dvorak Slavonic Dances.


----------



## haziz

He's a machine. Yes, but a very good one! 

Seriously, I would answer definitely yes. His recordings of a lot of the core repertoire often represents some of the best recordings of those compositions. His precision does help. He also often adopts fairly fast tempi in an era when most of his contemporaries usually went in the opposite direction. I also don't find his recordings to be lacking emotion or pathos.

His Beethoven symphony cycle is one of my favorites, possibly my absolute favorite. His late Dvorak symphonies are, appropriately, legendary. His Dvorak Slavonic Dances are a romp. His late Tchaikovsky symphonies (4 & 5) are great, belying his reputation as emotionally cold. His Mahler 4 is legendary and is my favorite recording of that symphony.


----------



## starthrower

Some of my favorite Cleveland Orchestra CDs are conducted by Boulez, and Maazel. I like Szell's Schumann No.2. I have some of his Beethoven, Dvorak, and Mozart but I usually listen to other conductors instead.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I haven't systematically collected his recordings. I value some quite highly, especially the Mozart concerti with Casadesus and Brahms with Fleisher. I have a few more (the Decca masters box and a few singles on Sony). Schumann and Haydn symphonies I'd value as good but not as great as many find them (I know little of his Beethoven besides the 5th and Egmont on Decca both of which are very good).
So overall I estimate Szell as a very good conductor but not a huge favorite.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

haziz said:


> He's a machine. Yes, but a very good one!
> 
> Seriously, I would answer definitely yes. His recordings of a lot of the core repertoire often represents some of the best recordings of those compositions. His precision does help. He also often adopts fairly fast tempi in an era when most of his contemporaries usually went in the opposite direction. I also don't find his recordings to be lacking emotion or pathos.
> 
> His Beethoven symphony cycle is one of my favorites, possibly my absolute favorite. His late Dvorak symphonies are, appropriately, legendary. His Dvorak Slavonic Dances are a romp. His late Tchaikovsky symphonies (4 & 5) are great, belying his reputation as emotionally cold. His Mahler 4 is legendary and is my favorite recording of that symphony.


I'm not qualified to judge Szell's Mahler 4 as I'm not a Mahler fan, but the fact that so many people cite that recording is testament to Szell's sheer professionalism because, like me, he didn't find Mahler's music congenial. There are other conductors whose best moments get through to me more than Szell's do, but I've come across few whose musicmaking was of such consistently high quality.


----------



## larold

I heard many of his recordings though I have nothing of his in my collection.

I once heard Szell and Karajan described as being leading conductors in the School of Industrial Perfection.

I thought that silly, a cliche. Szell had many fine, warm recordings with lots of humanity. His later Haydn symphonies are among them. He was also very good at descriptive music such as the Hary Janos and Lt. Kije suites.

His orchestra played letter and note perfect all the time with perfect intonation, it is true. I don't know why that would be considered a detriment. Listen to his Pictures At An Exhibition someday.

One thing cannot be denied about Szell: he was consistent. It was probably also true he concentrated on execution and perfection at the expense of what some may say soul.

Anshel Brusilow, the former concertmaster under Szell, wrote about him in his book. Szell was neither an easy person to work for nor was he generous. But that was not unusual in his day either.


----------



## Heck148

Great conductor, superb musician, who built s great orchestra in Cleveland....i generally enjoy his performances a great deal....a total control freak, he could keep things " buttoned down" at times but he also let the orchestra really cut loose at times to great effect.
Like many podium autocrats of the time, he could be a pretty miserable person


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

For me the issue is not so much lack of warmth as much as it is lack of depth. I don’t feel like Szell is saying anything beyond a simplistically literal conveyance of the score, which for me is often painfully dull, except in those cases where the music lends itself to mere virtuosity as entertainment value.

I listened to his Eroica a few days ago. The outer movements were thrilling in their dexterity. Indeed, a machine but a good machine. The Marcia funebre was well-paced and sensitively played by the orchestra, but it barely skimmed the surface. So many greater conductors have left touching accounts. Even Toscanini, who makes me feel like I am listening to La Traviata in this movement, is showing personal connection to the music and saying something.

Music, as all art, is inherently individual and subjective. I don’t believe in objective regurgitation of the written score.

.


----------



## Knorf

Absolutely yes, he is, because he was an astounding musician and left us numerous superb recordings.

The rest is up to taste. For mine, I frequently find his recordings extremely satisfying.

I'm listening to the Szell/Cleveland _Don Juan_ right now, and this recording still sweeps me away with its virtuosity, keen sense of drama, and thoughtful understanding of the dark side of the original poem that inspired Strauss to compose this.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Well, Szell's Schubert's 9th (Epic lp and Sony cd) gives me the incisiveness and drive I prefer over all other interpretations I've heard. On the other hand, Walter's Brahms gives me the lyricism or poetry Szell's Brahms comparatively misses here. But I'm not about to over generalize. For me, a lot is based on nuances---how and how much I am moved by them. Not long ago I listened to a Tokyo performance of the Sibelius' Second given by Szell/Cleveland just prior to the conductor's death in 1970. Frankly, I was amazed at the difference in interpretation between this and Szell's 1965 Concertgebouw Second on Philips. It was like night and day. To me, the latter reading heaved and lurched, the former soared and inspired. Rigidity? lack of emotion? No. Szell is often accused of both...And try something else: Szell's Columbia/Sony Dvorak Seventh. Listen to the second movement poco adagio. Coldness? No. _I_ hear emotional warmth. I'll say no more for now.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I haven't listened to enough Szell since I generally avoid older recordings for their poorer sound quality. 
I have his Beethoven symphonies set and while not among my favourite (sound quality has to do with it to a large degree), the Allegretto from the 7th is the best I've heard.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'm not a huge Szell fan, but the recording he made with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf of Strauss' _Vier letzte Lieder_ and orchesterlieder is breath-takingly beautiful. Of course, the music itself could be described in this manner, but the amount of detail and attention brought to the music is perfection (or as close as one could get to it). Of course, Schwarzkopf carries the show, but the accompaniment from Szell is what makes it even more successful. I also like his Dvořák.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Absolutely yes, he is, because he was an astounding musician and left us numerous superb recordings.
> 
> The rest is up to taste. For mine, I frequently find his recordings extremely satisfying.
> 
> I'm listening to the Szell/Cleveland _Don Juan_ right now, and this recording still sweeps me away with its virtuosity, keen sense of drama, and thoughtful understanding of the dark side of the original poem that inspired Strauss to compose this.


Funny you mention it as that is maybe my favorite Szell recording. His Richard Strauss was great - the DJ, Don Quixote with Fournier, Tod und Verklärung, and Till Eulenspiegel all among the best.

OTOH, I can't think of a single case where I would name Szell's version of a Classical or Romantic symphony to be among the best, not even the famous Mahler 4th which I find clinical. They sound to me too by-the-numbers, too straight forward.

Maybe it's a case where to my ear Strauss tone poems play more to Szell's strength as an orchestral technician as opposed to a symphonic interpreter.

.


----------



## progmatist

I don't know about "favorite." But I do own at least as many recordings by him as the likes of Bernstein, Karajan, Ormandy or others.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Funny you mention it as that is maybe my favorite Szell recording. His Richard Strauss was great - the DJ, Don Quixote with Fournier, Tod und Verklärung, and Till Eulenspiegel all among the best.
> 
> OTOH, I can't think of a single case where I would name Szell's version of a Classical or Romantic symphony to be among the best, not even the famous Mahler 4th which I find clinical. They sound to me too by-the-numbers, too straight forward.


While I have to disagree with your exclusion of all of Szell's classical or romantic symphony interpretations from being among the best, I do concur with your assessment of his Mahler Fourth. In no special order, I would prefer Kletzki/Philharmonia, Klemperer/Philharmonia, Kubelik/BRSO, Solti/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw, Horenstein/London Philharmonic, Bernstein/New York Philharmonic, Tennstedt/London Philharmonic and Walter/New York Philharmonic (mono).


----------



## Knorf

I actually really like Szell's Mahler 4, mainly for that luminous third movement, but... I admit it's overall not really one of my top favorites.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Szell’s surgical, level-headed presentation of scores works well for me in Mozart and Haydn, and I also think the late Dvořák symphonies, Schubert 9, and Sibelius 2nd suited his style quite well. However, some of his famous recordings like the Beethoven, Brahms, and Schumann cycles and the Mahler 4 leave me cold. Still, it must be admitted that he could draw breathtakingly beautiful, full-bodied sounds from orchestras and it’s a pleasure to put on one of his recordings when I just want to hear how well something can be played. As a matter of fact, my favorite Szell recordings are when he is functioning as accompanist - providing a secure and sonorous orchestral canvas for his soloists to work their magic. The Four Last Songs with Schwarzkopf is one of the most sublime recordings of anything that I know, and I love the Beethoven piano concerti with Gilels and Brahms first concerto with Curzon.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Szell's surgical, level-headed presentation of scores works well for me in Mozart and Haydn.


Until I pop in Beecham, Walter, Jochum, Bernstein, or Klemperer and realize Classical works can be done with warmth without losing the sense of proportion and balance.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Brahms first concerto with Curzon.


Yes, that Brahms 1st collaboration with Curzon is dramatic as hell, well engineered by Culshaw.

.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Until I pop in Beecham, Walter, Jochum, Bernstein, or Klemperer and realize Classical works can be done with warmth without losing the sense of proportion and balance.


Yes, those are my favorites for Mozart and Haydn symphonies as well (particularly Walter and Klemperer in Mozart) for exactly the reason you cite, but I do find value in Szell's more "gruff," sharply-etched approach. It's what I reach for if I want a more HIP approach without the IMO unattractive sound of period instruments.


----------



## haziz

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ..........................
> As a matter of fact, my favorite Szell recordings are when he is functioning as accompanist - providing a secure and sonorous orchestral canvas for his soloists to work their magic. The Four Last Songs with Schwarzkopf is one of the most sublime recordings of anything that I know, and I love the Beethoven piano concerti with Gilels and Brahms first concerto with Curzon.


I do like him as conductor as I detailed earlier. As accompanist I would like to highlight his 1962 recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto with Pierre Fournier with Szell conducting in that case the Berlin Philharmonic. My favorite recording of the great Cello Concerto by Dvorak.


----------



## david johnson

Yes, get yourself some Szell/Cleveland. Very enjoyable. Great Dvorak and Schubert


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahmsian Colors said:


> Well, Szell's Schubert's 9th (Epic lp and Sony cd) gives me the incisiveness and drive I prefer over all other interpretations I've heard.


It's not bad but it has one of the most jarring tempo relations between a (very slow) introduction and (rather fast) main section of the first movement which is a major downside for me. (The missing repeats in the scherzo could be an upside...)


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> For me the issue is not so much lack of warmth as much as it is lack of depth. I don't feel like Szell is saying anything beyond a simplistically literal conveyance of the score, which for me is often painfully dull, except in those cases where the music lends itself to mere virtuosity as entertainment value.
> 
> I listened to his Eroica a few days ago. The outer movements were thrilling in their dexterity. Indeed, a machine but a good machine. The Marcia funebre was well-paced and sensitively played by the orchestra, but it barely skimmed the surface. So many greater conductors have left touching accounts. Even Toscanini, who makes me feel like I am listening to La Traviata in this movement, is showing personal connection to the music and saying something.
> 
> Music, as all art, is inherently individual and subjective. I don't believe in objective regurgitation of the written score.
> 
> .


Agree about Szell's "Eroica", not my favourite among his discography though I know some will disagree.

Your final paragraph however seems too sweeping to me. It is more than possible to "play as written" without it being a mere "regurgitation", as that Toscanini performance for one graphically illustrates.


----------



## Guest

I revere Szell for his ability to bring clarity to a complex score. His underlying philosophy, that the emotional depth of a work is best conveyed by presenting it clearly (rather than hamming it up) resonates with me.

I recently acquired the complete Szell/Columbia box and am trying to make my way through it as fast as my life circumstances permit.


----------



## jegreenwood

His recordings served as my imprint versions of more Austrian/Germanic works from Mozart to Brahms than anyone else. His Mozart and Haydn remain top choices for non HIP recordings and his Schubert 8th and 9th have been matched but not surpassed.

And I do have the big box. Ordered it before it was released.


----------



## Coach G

I enjoy a handful of Szell's recordings. The very smooth and warm recording of Mahler's _Symphony #4_ that he made with the Cleveland Orchestra and Judith Raskin ruined every other recording of _Mahler 4_ for me becuase it is that good. The Mozart recordings of the _Clarinet Concerto_ and _Sinfonia Concertante_ made with in-house musicians is equally flawless. The Prokofiev _Piano Concertos #1 & 3_that were made with Gary Graffman are also very good. That said, Szells recordings of Beethoven and Brahms are very muscular but seem to lack warmth and spontaneity to my ears. I read somewhere that those who heard Szell live were deeply impressed and that may be part of the problem, in that we don't always know how well a conductor's musical vision can be captured in the studio compared to the concert hall.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> His underlying philosophy, that the emotional depth of a work is best conveyed by presenting it clearly (rather than hamming it up).


Being sensitive to the nuances and emotional underpinnings of a score is not "hamming it up." To the contrary, Furtwängler described his style as simple honesty, following the natural flow of the music like a brook.

To me, Szell's clarity is distracting and draws attention to itself. It sounds unnatural, like saying "I love you" to someone in a detached monotone. Understanding and conveying the character and tone of a work is just as essential to the job of a conductor as getting the rhythms and dynamics correct.

Imagine someone speaking to you naturally, simply conveying what they have to say. Now imagine the same person over-enunciating every word. You would be distracted, and the emphasis on clarity would distract from the actual content, the message. But that's the difference in philosophy. A conductor like Furtwängler puts himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter. This only approximates the content.

.


----------



## fbjim

It depends on the composer. I think Beethoven can absolutely work as a non-interventionist manner (not that I mind more romantic ones), but Brahms symphonies less so. 

If it helps, early in my listening, I really wanted "straight" performances of the work- because I had the idea that "I want to hear what the composer wrote!" and all that. I still do like that approach when approaching new repertoire but I don't care as much about it nowadays. 

I think he's really good in extremely "romantic" work, oddly enough- stuff like Tchaikovsky and Strauss is so heart-on-sleeve that you can't help but get emotion from playing it straight.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter.


I strongly disagree with this caricature.


----------



## Phil loves classical

For me, Szell could be very great. His symphony recordings for Mozart Haffner, Beethoven 3, Tchaikovsky 4 and 5, Kodaly, Prokofiev, Wagner are among my favourites. His Schubert (much prefer Bohm), Brahms, Handel I can do without.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Being sensitive to the nuances and emotional underpinnings of a score is not "hamming it up." To the contrary, Furtwängler described his style as simple honesty, following the natural flow of the music like a brook.
> 
> To me, Szell's clarity is distracting and draws attention to itself. It sounds unnatural, like saying "I love you" to someone in a detached monotone. Understanding and conveying the character and tone of a work is just as essential to the job of a conductor as getting the rhythms and dynamics correct.
> 
> Imagine someone speaking to you naturally, simply conveying what they have to say. Now imagine the same person over-enunciating every word. You would be distracted, and the emphasis on clarity would distract from the actual content, the message. But that's the difference in philosophy. A conductor like Furtwängler puts himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter. This only approximates the content.
> 
> .


That's interesting. To me, Furtwangler sound sometimes artificial, and sometimes plain, but Szell seems to me much more natural. I don't feel he just follows the score literally at all, and knows how to bring things off cohesively, and expressively in a manner that's not cloying like how much of Bernstein comes across to me. I think it all has to do with a certain temperament of the listener, that certain conductors appeal to.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I strongly disagree with this caricature.


That's the literalist philosophy. Literally.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahmsianhorn said:


> A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter.


Hmm . . . I'm a court reporter. Maybe that's why I like Szell. :tiphat:


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's the literalist philosophy. Literally.


I'd prefer to say that strongly adding emotive interpretations to heavily emotional, romantic music like Tchaikovsky runs the risk of gilding the lily.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's the literalist philosophy. Literally.


This is a straw man that doesn't apply to Szell in any meaningful way.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> I'd prefer to say that strongly *adding emotive interpretations* to heavily emotional, romantic music like Tchaikovsky runs the risk of gilding the lily.


This goes back to my original point. Interpreting music in a naturally emotive way is no different than speaking in a tone that naturally conveys the emotion of the speech. You are not adding anything. But interpreting the music in a passionless, mechanical way strips the music of its natural essence. In that sense you are _subtracting_.

.


----------



## fbjim

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This goes back to my original point. Interpreting music in a naturally emotive way is no different than speaking in a tone that naturally conveys the emotion of the speech. You are not adding anything. But interpreting the music in a passionless, mechanical way strips the music of its natural essence. In that sense you are _subtracting_.
> 
> .


Musical instruments already have textures and timbres similar to speech. I actually think it would take more work to play, say, Tchaikovsky 6 in a way that isn't "emotional". Musical instruments playing those tones (subject to usual disclaimers about subjectivity of emotional reaction et al) will "naturally" emote that way without embellishment. (It's why I like, say, Pollini and Serkin in the slow Hammerklavier movement over more emotive pianists - I don't think that movement needs "help" to be profound)

And I certainly don't think it's wrong to interpret that kind of thing- but I don't think a "non-interventionist" conducting style is necessarily damaging to emotional affect. And I do think there are works of high complexity that absolutely needs interpretation to bring out the emotional affect - Brahms 4, or some Shostakovich, for instance.


----------



## Heck148

Phil loves classical said:


> ....That's interesting. To me, Furtwangler sound sometimes artificial, and sometimes plain, but Szell seems to me much more natural. I don't feel he just follows the score literally at all, and knows how to bring things off cohesively, and expressively in a manner that's not cloying.....


Yes, The excessive taffy-pulling of tempo by Furtwangler often sounds forced, or contrived to me...not natural...
To me, it is total falsehood that a literal approach is unexpressive, mechanical or robotic and unexpressive...that's complete baloney...a conductor who sticks close to the score can inspire amazingly passionate and expressive playing from his/her orchestra...
Precision does NOT automatically equate with expressive restraint....loose, sloppy playing does not automatically equate with great passion or expression.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> .....But interpreting the music in a passionless, mechanical way strips the music of its natural essence. In that sense you are _subtracting_.


This has no relevance to Szell....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Yes, The excessive taffy-pulling of tempo by Furtwangler often sounds forced, or contrived to me...not natural...
> To me, it is total falsehood that a literal approach is unexpressive, mechanical or robotic and unexpressive...that's complete baloney...a conductor who sticks close to the score can inspire amazingly passionate and expressive playing from his/her orchestra...


When I hear a conductor like Szell apply expression, it feels like just that - applying a tool to something. That's why it feels mechanical to me.

True expression is not generic. It comes from truly internalizing and identifying with an individual piece. Literally every single work ever composed has a different nature.



Heck148 said:


> Precision does NOT automatically equate with expressive restraint....loose, sloppy playing does not automatically equate with great passion or expression.


Clarity for clarity's sake does detract. You need to be saying more than just simply, "and HERE is Beat One."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> This has no relevance to Szell....


It was relevant to the post to which I was replying, which was claiming that emotion is something that one "adds" to music.

It is inherently part of the music, its natural essence, unless you are just practicing a generic scale.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> When I hear a conductor like Szell apply expression, it feels like just that - applying a tool to something. That's why it feels mechanical to me.


Szell doesn't "apply" expression....he follows the score. The phrasing and expression sound very natural



> True expression is not generic. It comes from truly internalizing and identifying with an individual piece. Literally every single work ever composed has a different nature.


This does not automatically indicate that pulling the tempo and dynamics every which way is justified...it can be said that we are hearing Furtwangler NOT Beethoven, or Brahms, etc.



> Clarity for clarity's sake does detract. You need to be saying more than just simply, "and HERE is Beat One."


What relevance has this to Szell?? He had a very definite idea of what he wanted, expected to hear, long before it happened.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It was relevant to the post to which I was replying, which was claiming that emotion is something that one "adds" to music.


Listeners do add it to the music.



> It is inherently part of the music, its natural essence, unless you are just practicing a generic scale.


But "applying" emotion is exactly what Furtwangler does!! Sometimes it works, sometimes it sounds wildly off track.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Being sensitive to the nuances and emotional underpinnings of a score is not "hamming it up." To the contrary, Furtwängler described his style as simple honesty, following the natural flow of the music like a brook.
> 
> To me, Szell's clarity is distracting and draws attention to itself. It sounds unnatural, like saying "I love you" to someone in a detached monotone. Understanding and conveying the character and tone of a work is just as essential to the job of a conductor as getting the rhythms and dynamics correct.
> 
> Imagine someone speaking to you naturally, simply conveying what they have to say. Now imagine the same person over-enunciating every word. You would be distracted, and the emphasis on clarity would distract from the actual content, the message. But that's the difference in philosophy. A conductor like Furtwängler puts himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter. This only approximates the content.
> 
> .


I didn't mention Furtwangler, and neither did anyone else on this thread, that I noticed. Somehow, if someone admires another conductor it is an affront to you because someone other than Furtwangler was praised.

I will not address your feelings for Furtwangler, you are free to idolize him, that's your prerogative.

The caricature of Szell that you put forward is simply ludicrous. Szell was certainly attentive to the expressive subtleties demanded by a passage of music. Those expressive subtleties included tempo, dynamics, phrasing, tone production. There is no contradiction between appropriately expressive performance and skillful control of balance so that every line of the score can be heard, rhythmic precision, allowing the music to be heard as written.

I must say I find myself baffled by



> A conductor like Furtwängler puts himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. A conductor like Szell reads off in strict dictation like a court reporter.


What does that even mean? The conductor doesn't speak to the audience, except through the music itself. Szell doesn't "read off in strict dictation." He doesn't speak at all. He lets the music speak, through its melody, harmony, counterpoint, dynamics, rhythm. I find it a refreshing contrast with more activist interpreters.


----------



## fbjim

Not to play into a stereotype of Szell but I also like that he does, to some extent, represent a baseline of "standard" interpretation set to an exceptionally high standard of musicianship that can be compared to other more emotive interpretations. There are certainly times where I find other interpretations better - I'd listen to Klemperer doing Brahms any day over Szell, for instance. (Then again, Klemperer is a favorite of mine, so...)

If I had to name a list off the top of my head, it'd probably be something like - Bernstein, Fricsay, Klemperer, Munch, Kubelik - but that's subject to change every day and with specific repertoire (there's stuff I'd run a mile to listen to Boulez do, for instance)


----------



## fbjim

also - von Dohnanyi vs Szell is more fun than another Furtwangler vs Szell (wasn't it Furtwangler vs Toscanini yesterday?) argument


----------



## Guest

fbjim said:


> Not to play into a stereotype of Szell but I also like that he does, to some extent, represent a baseline of "standard" interpretation set to an exceptionally high standard of musicianship that can be compared to other more emotive interpretations. There are certainly times where I find other interpretations better - I'd listen to Klemperer doing Brahms any day over Szell, for instance. (Then again, Klemperer is a favorite of mine, so...)


Szell is certainly more restrained than some others, in the liberties he allows himself. The more I listen to music the less I find myself having a "favorite" conductor. There are so many styles that bring out something new. I'm a big fan of Harnoncourt, Barbirolli, Haitink, Karajan, Mackerras, Cluytens, Ansermet, Monteux, Maazel, Schuricht, Szell, Boult, many others.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> I didn't mention Furtwangler, and neither did anyone else on this thread, that I noticed. Somehow, if someone admires another conductor it is an affront to you because someone other than Furtwangler was praised.


Getting a little touchy, aren't we? There's no affront here. I already mentioned that I count Szell's Richard Strauss among the best. The question was posed by the OP, and I answered it.

I brought up Furtwängler because he was the foremost symbol of the subjective school and wrote much about his own theories on conducting. I don't need your permission or anyone else's to bring that into the discussion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> But "applying" emotion is exactly what Furtwangler does!! Sometimes it works, sometimes it sounds wildly off track.


No. Wrong. Incorrect.

No one applies emotion. You either feel it or you don't.

Furtwängler did exactly what came naturally, and it sounds perfectly natural to me and many others. The essential point is he felt free to investigate the score and its meaning. He was not bound. And the music itself was freed as a result, to be realized fully and naturally.

A tightly disciplined approach can result in a technical marvel, but it can likewise inhibit the freedom discussed above.

And what could possibly be more antithetical to the spirit of Beethoven?


----------



## Josquin13

George Szell was capable of conducting well, at times, yet I often find his conducting too stiff, such as in his Haydn Symphonies (& particularly his set of "Paris" Symphonies), for example. & it both surprises and perplexes me that others, who are bigger Szell fans than I am, either don't hear this stiffness, or don't seem to mind it. I'm not sure which it is. But it's as if, in their early, formative years of listening to classical music, they first imprinted on Szell's recordings favorably, and have therefore lived with this stiffness for such a long time that they've grown used to it and can't hear that it's not good conducting. Or, perhaps they're not willing to admit it?

Here are two examples of Szell's ultra stiff Haydn, and IMO, there's no way that Haydn, if he had heard these performances, would be at all happy about them. I consider this poor conducting:










On the other hand, Szell's orchestra in Cleveland was a very good orchestra, & he deserves credit for building such an orchestra. Yet, they also sound hyper-drilled to me, or so rigidly locked into a tightly controlled state of music making that it makes me feel uneasy, at times. To the point that I believe their razor sharp playing partly contributes to the stiffness that I hear in the music making. At times, I can almost picture Szell cracking a whip over their heads, if they weren't doing exactly what he wanted, or were even slightly out of sync with his beat. The musicians almost sound like they're afraid to relax and breathe. At times, their phrasing can even seem stilted and rigid. Is that a great conductor? No, I don't think so. At least, not when the results are so stiff and hyper controlled from the podium that it's detrimental to the music.

So, for me, Szell was, for the most part, a mediocre conductor. & on certain outings be could even be responsible for some very poor conducting. For example, his conducting on his Beethoven Piano Concerto 1-5 cycle with pianist Emil Gilels was a big disappointment. It's perfunctory, uninspired, and uninteresting. To the extent that Szell ends up making a very poor match for Gilels' more inspired musicianship. In my view, Szell single-handedly ruins what should have been one of the great Beethoven Piano Concerto sets on record: considering that Gilels was in his prime, & the performances were well recorded. I don't think the conducting is even as good as Leopold Ludwig's conducting with Gilels on their earlier EMI Testament recording of the Piano Concertos Nos. 4 & 5. Which is frustrating, because Gilels' piano playing in the 5th PC with Szell is even better than it was with Ludwig. His interpretation had deepened since the Ludwig recording, & especially in the middle movement.

Yet, as an accompanist, Szell was in better form with violinist David Oistrakh in their EMI recording of the Brahms Violin Concerto. & I treasure that recording; although not so much for Szell's conducting, as for Oistrakh's magnificent violin playing. Nor is the Cleveland performance the finest of Oistrakh's several recordings of the Brahms Violin Concerto, either, IMO, if I were pressed to pick just one. Szell's fans might disagree, but ask yourself, does Szell provide the kind of depth and insight into Brahms' score as Otto Klemperer does for Oistrakh on their recording of the Brahms VC? For me, in a side by side comparison, Klemperer is easily the more knowing & more flexible Brahms conductor. But in order to hear this, you have to focus on the actual conducting, and not the exceptional orchestral playing, or the fabulous violin soloist:

--Szell, Oistrakh, Brahms Violin Concerto: 



--Klemperer, Oistrakh, Brahms Violin Concerto: 




If I'd been able to ask Oistrakh which conductor he preferred back then, I'd bet good money that he would have said Klemperer. It's in his violin playing, and his response to the orchestra--which is more inspired with Klemperer, IMO.

Lastly, to my ears, Szell didn't have much, if any sense of humor as a conductor. Which at least partly explains why his Haydn is so stiff, because Haydn definitely had a sense of humor (it's plainly evident in the music). Is that really so hard to miss?

And yet!, when Szell got out of Cleveland, he became a different conductor. His Beethoven 5th with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, for example, is one of the great Beethoven 5ths on record, IMO. Here Szell gets what most other conductors miss, in his handling of the crucial "death note" that comes towards the end of the third movement, where the music flatlines and then GRADUALLY builds back up to the glorious triumph of the human spirit at the beginning of the 4th movement. Most conductors fail miserably here, because they either drown out the 'death' note with the timpani (as Norrington does), or they fly through the passage so quickly that there is no sense of STRUGGLE or tension in the music as it builds towards the triumph at the beginning of the 4th movement (Gardiner, C. Kleiber, Karajan, Masur Leipzig 1 & 2, Hogwood, etc., etc.). The period conductors are particularly clueless here (except for Harnoncourt's 2nd recording, where he gets it right). But Szell does get it, and IMO, that puts him in rare company--alongside the great recordings of the 5th that I know by Furtwangler, Koussevitsky, Erich Kleiber, Jochum LSO, Haitink Concertgebouw, Masur New York, and Harnoncourt 2--who I would likewise count among the conductors that understood the great importance of "death note" to this symphony, and how the music must build from there with a sense of struggle--like a boxer getting back up after being knocked out. Otherwise, Beethoven's score doesn't make any sense.

--Szell, Concertgebouw Orchestra, Beethoven's 5th (one of the great 5ths on record, IMO): 



.

The Philips coupling of the Sibelius Symphony No. 2 on the original LP is very good, too. Here Szell shows that he was a good Sibelius conductor. Although, personally, I'm not as keen on Szell's Sibelius as critic David Hurwitz is. For instance, I prefer a number of Finnish conductors instead--such as Berglund in Bournemouth, Kamu in Berlin, Segerstam, etc., along with Barbirolli & the RPO, and Gibson in his swansong 2nd with the Uppsala Chamber Orchestra. Although I get Hurwitz's point--it is a good Sibelius 2 (if still a little stiff in places), and better than I would have expected from Szell in Cleveland. (By the way, Hurwitz also raves about Szell's live Sibelius 2nd in Japan.) In addition, as others have already pointed out, Szell's conducting of Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs with soprano Elizabeth Schwartzkopf is also very good, and IMO, that recording rightly deserves to be considered a classic (unless you don't respond favorably to Schwartzkopf's singing, or think that she was past her prime, or find that Szell conducts too quickly in places). & once again, the recording happened outside of Cleveland, in Berlin, where Szell conducted the Berlin RSO. Even Szell's Haydn in Vienna is less stiff than it was in Cleveland!

--Szell, Sibelius 2, Concertgebouw Orchestra: 



--Szell, Sibelius 2, Cleveland Orchestra, live in Japan (& I agree with Hurwitz that this performance is better): 



.
--Strauss, Szell, Four Last Songs: 



--Szell, Haydn Symphony no. 93, Vienna SO, live (this is clearly less stiff than much of Szell's Haydn in Cleveland, indeed he sounds like a different conductor here): 




In other words, Szell seems to have been a happier person & a more relaxed conductor when he got out of Cleveland. Although, it could also be that when he guest conducted orchestras in Europe he didn't have enough rehearsal time to impose his will upon the musicians--as he did back in Cleveland, or alter the pre-existing sound of the orchestra, or the embedded style of their playing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Josquin13 said:


> In other words, Szell seems to have been a happier person & a more relaxed conductor when he got out of Cleveland.


"I didn't sack many."



Phil loves classical said:


> For me, Szell could be very great. His symphony recordings for Mozart Haffner, Beethoven 3, Tchaikovsky 4 and 5, Kodaly


The Haffner, yes! Thank you, that is in fact one symphony I can give it to Szell for being one of the best. The pointy rhythms and exuberance and all that. A jolly good show.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No one applies emotion. You either feel it or you don't.


You feel it and apply it.


> Furtwängler did exactly what came naturally,


The excessive taffy-pulling, distortions are hardly natural sounding....I often find myself asking "WTH is he doing?, why did he do that??"



> The essential point is he felt free to investigate the score and its meaning.


More like he felt free to apply his own excessive distortions and largely ignore the score.



> A tightly disciplined approach can result in a technical marvel, but it can likewise inhibit the freedom discussed above.


An undisciplined approach can result in a real mess, and can fail badly to present the music convincingly



> And what could possibly be more antithetical to the spirit of Beethoven?


Indeed!!


----------



## Josquin13

Heck148 writes of Furtwangler's conducting: "The excessive taffy-pulling, distortions are hardly natural sounding....I often find myself asking "WTH is he doing?, why did he do that??"

Because he was a devotee of Schenkerian musical analysis. Furtwängler was always looking to find deeper psychological and emotional truths within the score, and willing to pull the tempo around, in order to achieve a greater expressiveness. All of the musicians that I've heard who were devotees to Schenkerian analysis do this--including Samuel Feinberg, Elizabeth Rich, Edward Aldwell, etc.. None of them keep a steady tempo, but instead pull it around. It's deliberate, and all to bring out and discover a greater expressiveness & meaning within the music. In other words, it's not due to sloppiness, as is sometimes claimed.

Heinrich Schenker was himself a pupil of Anton Bruckner. & not surprisingly, Furtwängler's conducting style works particularly well in the music of Bruckner, which I think lends itself to Schenker's ideas (as they may partly derive from Bruckner). But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler.


----------



## Alinde

It's so long since I've listened to any of Szell's recordings (back when I was first getting to know classical music) that I shouldn't really respond to this thread. But maybe you've come across a reaction by another famous conductor of his early experience of playing under Szell's baton:

"He should be happy that I didn't kill him... "


----------



## Heck148

Josquin13 said:


> Heck148 writes of Furtwangler's conducting: "The excessive taffy-pulling, distortions are hardly natural sounding....I often find myself asking "WTH is he doing?, why did he do that??"
> 
> Because he was a devotee of Schenkerian musical analysis. Furtwängler was always looking to find_ deeper psychological and emotional truths_ within the score, and willing to pull the tempo around, in order to achieve a greater expressiveness. All of the musicians that I've heard who were devotees to Schenkerian analysis do this--including Samuel Feinberg, Elizabeth Rich, Edward Aldwell, etc.. None of them keep a steady tempo, but instead pull it around. It's deliberate, and all to bring out and discover a greater expressiveness & meaning within the music. In other words, it's not due to sloppiness, as is sometimes claimed.


Of, course, sloppy execution is not the intent, but often it comes off that way.....poor, imprecise execution, to me, and to where and how I was taught, does not further increased musical expression.

"_deeper psychological and emotional truths_" - the positing of such is indeed extremely subjective - it begs the question - is the conductor performer just making it up??



> But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler.


Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion....


----------



## Heck148

Alinde said:


> It's so long since I've listened to any of Szell's recordings (back when I was first getting to know classical music) that I shouldn't really respond to this thread. But maybe you've come across a reaction by another famous conductor of his early experience of playing under Szell's baton:
> 
> "He should be happy that I didn't kill him... "


It's true that Szell was a real control freak, and a difficult person....like many podium giants of his day, Szell could be a real tyrant.


----------



## wkasimer

> George Szell was capable of conducting well, at times, yet I often find his conducting too stiff, such as in his Haydn Symphonies (& particularly his set of "Paris" Symphonies), for example. & it both surprises and perplexes me that others, who are bigger Szell fans than I am, either don't hear this stiffness, or don't seem to mind it.


Don't you mean the *London* symphonies? AFAIK, Szell only recorded a couple of the Paris group.

But I agree about Szell's Haydn. I wouldn't necessarily call it "stiff", but to my ears, it's utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The earliest Haydn included in that Sony box is #88. Unless there are some live/rare recordings around, Szell recorded 88, 92-99, 104. I don't think these recordings are as good as some claim but they are mostly pretty good and some of their reputation might be due to the fact that there was very little Haydn around ca. 1960 when they came out that was obviously superior. Beecham might have more charm but used horrible edition that are sometimes missing half of the woodwind parts. Scherchen was extremely uneven and so on.
It's been a while I heard the Szell recordings but I think I liked his 95 and 97 quite a bit.


----------



## Coach G

A lot of people here have identified Szell as "surgical" and "stiff". I don't think of Szell as a surgeon, but more as a master chef; and Szell himself was a gourmet cook. Like master chef, Gordon Ramsey who is known for blowing his top on _Master Chef_ and _Hell's Kitchen_, Szell was a stern taskmaster and led the orchestra with a firm hand. Szell deserves much credit for transforming the Cleveland Orchestra from second or even third rate to world class. In the Mozart _Clarinet Concerto_ and _Sinfonia Concertante_, Szell relies upon in-house musicians who satisfy as well, or even better, as any big name that could have been brought in from the outside. But as a master chef, Szell's approach is one of balance: too much seasoning and you can't taste the food; not enough seasoning and the food taste like nothing.

George Szell; Gordon Ramsey; at work:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> "_deeper psychological and emotional truths_" - the positing of such is indeed extremely subjective - it begs the question - is the conductor performer just making it up??


You have expressed several subjective opinions on this thread. Are you just making them up? Of course not. These are your honest impressions. I am a performer as well. Getting deeper into the heart of a piece is a process of discovery. And when you succeed, and the audience is with you, the result is often magical. It's most definitely not made up. I have never understood technicians who eschew heart and emotion. It is almost as if they are afraid of "mistakes" and so take the more reliable, less dangerous path in order to not be embarrassed in front of their audience. That may be the crux of the difference in philosophy.



Heck148 said:


> Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion....


From John Ardoin's book, The Furtwängler Record:

It was my good fortune to know and spend time with Maria Callas, about whom I have previously written three books. She often amazed me with previously unsuspected areas of interest, but never more so than one day in August 1968. She was in Dallas recovering from a fall in which she had cracked several ribs. I picked her up one day for a doctor's appointment, and as I started the car, the radio came on. A symphony was being played. When I reached over to turn it off, she said, "No, leave it. The Beethoven Eighth is a favorite of mine.

That was a surprise - a soprano, even a Callas, who loved and recognized Beethoven's Eighth! As I drove and she listened, Callas became more and more impatient. "That phrase is wrong. Where's the line going? No! What's he doing there? It doesn't breathe. Oh, this is nonsense." We reached the doctor's office before the record had finished, and she insisted on sitting in the parking lot until the end to find out who the conductor was. After the final chord, the announcer said, "You have just heard a performance of the Eighth Symphony of Beethoven with the Cleveland Orchestra conducted by George Szell."

"Well, she sighed, "you see what we have been reduced to. We are now in a time when a Szell is considered a master. How small he was next to Furtwängler." Reeling in disbelief - not at her verdict, with which I agreed, but from the unvarnished acuteness of it - I stammered, "But how do you know Furtwängler? You never sang with him."

"How do you think?" She stared at me with equal disbelief. "He started his career after the war in Italy. I heard dozens of his concerts there. To me, he was Beethoven."

.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ No disrespect to Callas. I think she's a very unique and great singer, but that is only one way of listening. I think the art of interpretation (and breathing) is quite subjective. I remember when I would listen to Murray Perahia, the phrasing sounded wrong to me, but listening at times later, it would make sense, sometimes even found it great, then aftern I listen to other interpretations of the same work, I would find Perahia gimmicky again. Sometimes I find S Richter's playing great, and empty at the same time.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ......I have never understood technicians who eschew heart and emotion. It is almost as if they are afraid of "mistakes" and so take the more reliable, less dangerous path in order to not be embarrassed in front of their audience. That may be the crux of the difference in philosophy.


??? Why do you assume that those conductor/performers who do not take the Furtwangler approach are "technicians" who eschew "heart and emotion"??
Again - precision, accurate execution in no way equates with stiff, unexpressive, stiff or dull performance.

I just find it tough to accept the portentous premise that every harmonic half-note in Beethoven, Brahms or Bruckner is necessarily imbued with some sort of cosmic significance.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> ??? Why do you assume that those conductor/performers who do not take the Furtwangler approach are "technicians" who eschews "heart and emotion"??


If you quote the entire post, I was specifically describing my experience as a performer.


----------



## wkasimer

Heck148 said:


> ??? Why do you assume that those conductor/performers who do not take the Furtwangler approach are "technicians" who eschews "heart and emotion"??
> Again - precision, accurate execution in no way equates with stiff, unexpressive, stiff or dull performance.


It's a strawman that deserves to be ignored. Lesser performers (and I am certainly among them) have to concentrate on the technical aspects of playing and performing, because the first responsibility of any performer is to execute the notes that are written on the page. If you can't play the right notes, in tune, with the proper rhythm, and at a coherent tempo, there's little point to looking past the notes to find "heart and emotion", because the audience isn't going to notice - they're going to hear only the technical flaws.


----------



## amfortas

wkasimer said:


> It's a strawman that deserves to be ignored. Lesser performers (and I am certainly among them) have to concentrate on the technical aspects of playing and performing, because the first responsibility of any performer is to execute the notes that are written on the page. If you can't play the right notes, in tune, with the proper rhythm, and at a coherent tempo, there's little point to looking past the notes to find "heart and emotion", because the audience isn't going to notice - they're going to hear only the technical flaws.


ALGERNON: Did you hear what I was playing, Lane?

LANE: I didn't think it polite to listen, sir.

ALGERNON: I'm sorry for that, for your sake. I don't play accurately-any one can play accurately-but I play with wonderful expression.

--Oscar Wilde, _The Importance of Being Earnest_


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> It's a strawman that deserves to be ignored. Lesser performers (and I am certainly among them) have to concentrate on the technical aspects of playing and performing, because the first responsibility of any performer is to execute the notes that are written on the page. If you can't play the right notes, in tune, with the proper rhythm, and at a coherent tempo, there's little point to looking past the notes to find "heart and emotion", because the audience isn't going to notice - they're going to hear only the technical flaws.


From Alex Ross, The New Yorker:

" In an age of note-perfect digital renditions, what's most striking is Furtwängler's willingness-and his musicians' willingness-to sacrifice precision for the sake of passion. The conductor had a famously wobbly, hard-to-read beat, which inspired many jokes. A member of the London Philharmonic quipped that one should wait until the "thirteenth preliminary wiggle" of the baton before beginning to play. Furtwängler's renditions of Beethoven's Fifth tend to begin not with "bum-bum-bum-BUM" but with "b-bumbumbumBUM." The inexactitude was by design. It's the roughness of the attacks at the beginning of the "Coriolan" that provides a sense of catastrophic power. As Taruskin points out, Furtwängler was entirely capable of eliciting unanimity when he wanted to, as rip-roaring accounts of Strauss's "Don Juan" and "Till Eulenspiegel" attest. One never knows quite what to expect: spontaneity is the rule."


----------



## SONNET CLV

Coach G said:


> A lot of people here have identified Szell as "surgical" and "stiff". I don't think of Szell as a surgeon, but more as a master chef; and Szell himself was a gourmet cook. ... But as a master chef, Szell's approach is one of balance: too much seasoning and you can't taste the food; not enough seasoning and the food taste like nothing.
> 
> George Szell; Gordon Ramsey; at work:
> 
> View attachment 157523
> View attachment 157524


"Now Gordon, a little decrescendo
on the salt. Ah! That's perfect. Just
right."


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> " In an age of note-perfect digital renditions, what's most striking is Furtwängler's willingness-and his musicians' willingness-to sacrifice precision for the sake of passion.


One can't sacrifice what one does not possess. It's one thing to make a conscious choice to "let 'er rip"; it's quite another to mask one's technical deficiencies by laying on emotion with a trowel.


----------



## fbjim

How much technical imperfection impacts your enjoyment is really entirely subjective to your tastes as a listener.


----------



## wkasimer

fbjim said:


> How much technical imperfection impacts your enjoyment is really entirely subjective to your tastes as a listener.


Of course, and no one claims otherwise. There's a reason why some people adore Schnabel's Beethoven, and others can't listen to it for more than 30 seconds.


----------



## Merl

Oh a thread about Furty and subjective truth. How fascinating.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Oh a thread about Furty and subjective truth. How fascinating.


:lol::tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

One thing is for sure, no one else is more deserving of the acclaimed orchestral accompaniment recordings award:

Beethoven, piano concertos w/Fleisher
Beethoven, piano concertos w/Gilels
Beethoven, violin concerto w/Huberman
Brahms, 1st piano concerto w/Schnabel
Brahms, 1st piano concerto w/Curzon
Brahms, 1st & 2nd piano concertos w/Fleisher
Brahms, 1st & 2nd piano concertos w/Serkin
Brahms, violin concerto w/Oistrakh
Brahms, violin concerto w/Morini (live)
Brahms, violin concerto w/Heifetz (live)
Brahms, double violin concerto w/Oistrakh & Rostropovich
Dvorak, cello concerto w/Casals
Mozart, clarinet concerto w/Marcellus
Mozart, piano concertos Nos. 19 & 20 w/Serkin
Mozart, piano concerto Nos. 21-24, 26, 27 w/Casadesus
R. Strauss, Don Quixote w/Fournier
R. Strauss, Four last songs w/Schwarzkopf
Tchaikovsky, 1st piano concerto w/Horowitz (live)


----------



## Heck148

wkasimer said:


> It's a strawman that deserves to be ignored.


I don't think so - the implication seems to be that accurate playing, precision, necessarily excludes expressive or passionate presentation....my own long experience tells me this is not so. what is the basis for this implication??



> If you can't play the right notes, in tune, with the proper rhythm, and at a coherent tempo, there's little point to looking past the notes to find "heart and emotion", because the audience isn't going to notice - they're going to hear only the technical flaws.


Good point....of course, we both know that there can be musical performances that are not technically perfect, but may be very expressive musically, and have great value....also, there may technically perfect renditions that are very routine or boring.

The point is that playing true to the score does not automatically make a performance routine or boring, also - playing with wild or extreme tempo, dynamic fluctuations does not necessarily reveal some over-riding "truth" or emotion of the score.
I mean, what is the "truth" of Brahms Symphony #1??


----------



## fbjim

fbjim said:


> also - von Dohnanyi vs Szell is more fun than another Furtwangler vs Szell (wasn't it Furtwangler vs Toscanini yesterday?) argument


still sad this got ignored!

von Dohnanyi's Bartok is so good....


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Heck148 said:


> [Furtwangler's]......excessive taffy-pulling, distortions are hardly natural sounding....I often find myself asking "WTH is he doing?, why did he do that??"


An aspect of a number of his interpretations I have found fairly annoying as well.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I mean, what is the "truth" of Brahms Symphony #1??


And here we go with the strawman


----------



## wkasimer

Heck148 said:


> I don't think so - the implication seems to be that accurate playing, precision, necessarily excludes expressive or passionate presentation....my own long experience tells me this is not so. what is the basis for this implication??


It's a strawman because it's a non-provable statement that someone wishes to use to argue that technical perfection is antithetical to musical expression.


----------



## SONNET CLV

fbjim said:


> How much technical imperfection impacts your enjoyment is really entirely subjective to your tastes as a listener.


And, who knows? Some of us may not like the way Beethoven conducted/interpreted his own symphonies, could we have a chance to hear the performances, after having gained familiarity of the music as produced by some of our favorite conductors and their orchestras.

One can test this notion out somewhat by blindly comparing recordings of 20th century works conducted by the composers and comparing the renditions with other interpretations. Stravinsky, for example, famously conducted much of his own music. One can compare that to other conductors' productions. Results might prove interesting, even revelatory.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

wkasimer said:


> It's a strawman because it's a non-provable statement that someone wishes to use to argue that technical perfection is antithetical to musical expression.


That's not what strawman means. Strawman is when you argue against someone by distorting their argument.

And if the technical perfection is pursued as an end in itself, particularly if it's to draw attention to itself so as to impress the audience with the performer's technical skill, yes it is absolutely antithetical. This is why people will often delineate between performances that use virtuosity merely as an end to impress vs those that use it "in service to the music." The latter recognizes a deeper meaning in the music to which technique is subservient.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Oh a thread about Furty and subjective truth. How fascinating.


" subjective truth" - lol!! Good label...
The board needed a little revving up...things getting a little stale...:lol::lol::devil:


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And if the technical perfection is pursued as an end in itself, particularly if it's to draw attention to itself so as to impress the audience with the performer's technical skill, yes it is absolutely antithetical. This is why people will often delineate between performances that use virtuosity merely as an end to impress vs those that use it "in service to the music." The latter recognizes a deeper meaning in the music to which technique is subservient.


I think your argumentation since long has been tiring in its predictability, and this is of course the reason of some ironic comments from other posters. The fact is, that how much "expression" musicians put in their work is a question of temper and musical aesthetics, and the technical perfection is just the prerequisite for them to be able to apply the degree of expressiveness they want. And a more restrained expression is not by itself inexpressive as you seem to presuppose. In fact, I think very few musicians can be called truly inexpressive in your sense.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> " subjective truth" - lol!! Good label...
> The board needed a little revving up...things getting a little stale...


No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.


You have talked about the truth Furty seeks in the music. If this doesn't denote a subjective truth, I don't know what the word truth means, but of course the question: "What is truth" was put already by Pilatus.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No one said anything here about "subjective truth." That was your contribution to the discussion.


"Subjective truth" was not my label...I just happen to think it quite fitting...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> You have talked about the truth Furty seeks in the music. If this doesn't denote a subjective truth, I don't know what the word truth means, but of course the question: "What is truth" was put already by Pilatus.


That is false. I have never stated it that way. I have stated that his interpretations are not "embellishments" or "adding" to the music, but they are what rings true as a natural expression of the music for him. Reread my posts instead of misquoting me.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> "Subjective truth" was not my label...I just happen to think it quite fitting...


Nope. It absolutely is your label. You are claiming that I am arguing that musical interpretation is a road to some larger "subjective truth." I have never said that. Do you know what a strawman is? It's when you mischaracterize someone's argument in order to pretend you are "winning."


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope. It absolutely is your label.


No, it is Merl's...i find it quite fitting...



> You are claiming that I am arguing that musical interpretation is a road to some larger "subjective truth."


Isn't that exactly what you claim that WF pursues??
Some metaphysical, extra-musical "truth"??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Isn't that exactly what you claim that WF pursues??
> Some metaphysical, extra-musical "truth"??


No, I have never said that, and neither would he.

What he says is that the perfect realization of a classical work exists only in the abstract, and as performers were are attempting as best we can to approximate it.


----------



## premont

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That is false. I have never stated it that way. I have stated that his interpretations are not "embellishments" or "adding" to the music, but they are what rings true as a natural expression of the music for him. Reread my posts instead of misquoting me.
> 
> .


There were lenghty discussions of this in the "Fascination with Furtwängler" thread and also in the "Fascination with Toscanini" thread. Here is a quote from the former:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> .... 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.
> 
> Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. We can only hope to approximate it.


----------



## Merl

I'm sorry I mentioned it. We're gonna get 25 pages of arguing about that now. Any chance of a return to discussing Szell anytime soon rather than the usual Furty thread hijacking ? Personally I'd put Szell's mechanical, surgical, soulless, shallow Dvorak symphonies 7-9 above nearly anyone's. 

Initially, part of the problem I had with some of Szell's recordings was the sound. He was allegedly notorious for interfering in the mixing of albums (constant dissatisfaction with the sound) and didn't have a good ear for stereo listening. A reporter called round to his house once and Szell was complaining about the sound of his stereo broadcasts. The reporter pointed out that part of the problem could be that Mrs S. had placed the speakers behind the settee because they looked ugly. He hadn't even noticed. For a man that often complained about the acoustics at Severance Hall he had little understanding of what would sound good on disc. Thus his VPO Beethoven 5th from Salzburg sounds way better than his studio recording as he had no hand in what it sounded like. Fortunately much of his tinkering has been fixed with subsequent remasterings. I used to have his Beethoven cycle on LPs and it sounded horrid. With the advent of SBM remastering these recordings sounded much better.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....What he says is that the perfect realization of a classical work exists only in the abstract, and as performers were are attempting as best we can to approximate it.


you make my point exactly, thank you....:tiphat:


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> ....Any chance of a return to discussing Szell anytime soon ....? Personally I'd put Szell's mechanical, surgical, soulless, shallow Dvorak symphonies 7-9 above nearly anyone's.


Szell was a great conductor; for me, he sometimes keeps things "buttoned down" too tightly...and the assertions that he could be stiff or rigid have some validity....however, this is not always the case...at times, he'd really let the orchestra rip - and this was to great effect - Cleveland was a terrific ensemble with great players - I'm thinking Beethoven #7, Leonore #3[!!], Walton Sym #2, just ottomh....
I also enjoy his Mozart and Haydn....the exquisite phrasing and precision are most attractive, and again, he enjoyed input from his outstanding orchestra....
The guy was a total control freak, tho - any lengthy solo meant special coaching sessions with the Maestro, so that it was presented according to his wishes. Szell controlled each musician's salary. If a musician wanted a raise, it had to go thru him...he even tried to dictate musicians' personal habits to a degree - what instrument they played, what they ate, drank, did with free time, etc...

A highly enjoyable book *<<Tales from the Locker Room - An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra>>* by Lawrence Angell and Bernette Jaffe sheds some light on his relationships with his musicians....very entertaining...


----------



## Malx

Heck148 said:


> Szell was a great conductor; for me, he sometimes keeps things "buttoned down" too tightly...and the assertions that he could be stiff or rigid have some validity....however, this is not always the case...at times, he'd really let the orchestra rip - and this was to great effect - Cleveland was a terrific ensemble with great players - I'm thinking Beethoven #7, Leonore #3[!!], Walton Sym #2, just ottomh....
> I also enjoy his Mozart and Haydn....the exquisite phrasing and precision are most attractive, and again, he enjoyed input from his outstanding orchestra....
> The guy was a total control freak, tho - any lengthy solo meant special coaching sessions with the Maestro, so that it was presented according to his wishes. Szell controlled each musician's salary. If a musician wanted a raise, it had to go thru him...he even tried to dictate musicians' personal habits to a degree - what instrument they played, *what they ate, drank, did with free time, etc...*
> 
> A highly enjoyable book Tales from the Locker Room - An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra by Lawrence Angell and Bernette Jaffe sheds some light on his relationships with his musicians....very entertaining...


Sounds like he was really the Head Coach of the Cleveland Browns


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> There were lenghty discussions of this in the "Fascination with Furtwängler" thread and also in the "Fascination with Toscanini" thread. Here is a quote from the former:


I clarified exactly what I am saying in my previous response:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> What he says is that the perfect realization of a classical work exists only in the abstract, and as performers were are attempting as best we can to approximate it.


My previous response you quote here is no different...



Brahmsianhorn said:


> .... 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.
> 
> Furtwangler himself once said that we can never achieve in performance the essence of a work. We can only hope to approximate it.


...except the context was that another poster was claiming that I was saying that only WF "possessed" the truth. I was clarifying that he as a performer, just like all of us, cannot possess the truth but he can only seek it.

"Truth" in this context refers to the perfect, "true" rendering of a musical work. It can only exist in the abstract.

I NEVER SAID that music is itself a vehicle through which we discover philosophical truth, and neither did WF.


----------



## Heck148

Malx said:


> Sounds like he was really the Head Coach of the Cleveland Browns


Szell was really into micro-managing...there are some funny stories about it.....


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Whilst Szell isn’t in my top 10, I do regard him highly. In particular I admire the sound he created with the Cleveland Orchestra, resulting in a phenomenal ensemble which always gives me the impression of having the qualities of a chamber ensemble. The standards within the Orchestra are well maintained to this day albeit under more agreeable conditions I’m sure.

Regarding Szell specifically, I can appreciate the way he can cut through to the core of the music and deliver a performance/an interpretation of of a work with clarity and without a feeling exaggeration or artificiality. Nothing feels done for the sake of being done.


----------



## Merl

I was reading some stuff about Szell a few months back and Eschenbach was actually singing his praises. The elderly Szell took him under his wing and Eschenbach painted a very different picture of him to others. 


> "I was never frightened of him or intimidated by him. He could be intimidating to others but to me he was warmer. Music was everything to him. As teacher, as conductor, he was supremely articulate. Clarity, transparency, diction, crisp articulation - these were his musical priorities. He was a great delineator of scores. He would say, 'Why is a note written if it's not heard?' For him every note was to be heard. We had wonderful sessions together.... We had endless conversations and two-piano sessions. He was a brilliant pianist, even at his age. I studied all the Beethoven concertos with him. It was an unbelievable experience."


And... 


> ". .. He always gave me his time. He worked through my entire piano repertoire with me at two pianos. This went on for two years, in various locations. He always played the orchestra parts - from memory, by the way, and brilliantly! At least twelve Mozart concertos I performed for him, all five Beethoven, Schumann, the two Brahms, and the second of Bartók..... Szell was a sculptor, a renderer, a formulator of phrases, and with the word formulator I already imply: a master of musical diction. What Harnoncourt formulated very aptly in his book, Music as Speech, I'd already heard ten years earlier from Szell."


Interesting perspectives. He and Karajan got on fabulously too yet you wouldn't have thought they would. When an interviewer said to Karajan that Klemperer once said Szell was" a machine but a very good machine", Karajan firmly retorted,



> "No, you cannot really say that. He was a man with a full heart. When you had a chance to meet him in his house with all his guests, he was a most charming and intelligent man. No, I can't understand that remark."


----------



## premont

Heck148 said:


> you make my point exactly, thank you....:tiphat:


And he still does


----------



## Shaughnessy

Malx said:


> Sounds like he was really the Head Coach of the Cleveland Browns


The sports analogy extends further than you might think -

*Tales from the Locker Room: An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra*

https://www.amazon.com/Tales-Locker-Room-Anecdotal-Cleveland/dp/1626130469

===========================================================

And as long as were on the subject of Cleveland sports... The Cleveland major league baseball team formerly known as the "Indians" announced today that they are now going to be known as the "Cleveland Guardians".

If someone had asked me... which they didn't but should have... I would have suggested

the "Cleveland Rocks" - really nice Ian Hunter reference combined with the location of the Rock 
and Roll Hall of Fame.

I know, I know... this has nothing to do with anything but someday... if you're ever on Jeopardy and this comes up you'll thank me....


----------



## Heck148

premont said:


> And he still does


Yup!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

premont said:


> And he still does





Heck148 said:


> Yup!!


Nope. Seeking a perfect rendition of the music does not equate to seeking an extra-musical philosophical truth.


----------



## amfortas

Sunburst Finish said:


> And as long as were on the subject of Cleveland sports... The Cleveland major league baseball team formerly known as the "Indians" announced today that they are now going to be known as the "Cleveland Guardians".
> 
> If someone had asked me... which they didn't but should have... I would have suggested the "Cleveland Rocks" - really nice Ian Hunter reference combined with the location of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.


I'm really surprised they didn't go with the "Cleveland Szells." You'd think the whole city would get behind honoring one if its most distinguished figures.


----------



## wkasimer

How many conductors would fit on the head of a pin?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## amfortas

wkasimer said:


> How many conductors would fit on the head of a pin?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


One to hold the bulb and four to turn the ladder.

Oh wait . . .


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope. Seeking a perfect rendition of the music does not equate to seeking an extra-musical philosophical truth.


Sounds pretty synonymous to me....


----------



## Malx

wkasimer said:


> How many conductors would fit on the head of a pin?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


Conductors or semi-conductors?


----------



## Josquin13

wkasimer said:


> Don't you mean the *London* symphonies? AFAIK, Szell only recorded a couple of the Paris group.
> 
> But I agree about Szell's Haydn. I wouldn't necessarily call it "stiff", but to my ears, it's utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth.


I was thinking of an LP box set that I owned briefly back in the 1980s, and specifically Szell's No. 88 in Cleveland. But you & Kreisler Jr. are right, I misremembered the contents of that set (sorry, it was a long time ago). I'm pretty sure that it did contain Symphony no. 88 though, and now that I think more about it, Haydn's symphonies in the 90s (93-98, perhaps). Which doesn't change my point of view. Szell fans rave about Szell's no. 88, 92, etc., yet in my nearly four decades of listening to classical music, I've never heard Haydn conducting that is so stiff. It's unusual, and distinctive. And therefore, it never fails to surprise me that others who listen to these same recordings don't hear Szell's stiffness (such as David Hurwitz, for example, who thinks that Szell's Haydn is the best out there!), or dismiss my view as being purely subjective. I don't see it as subjective. Not if you actually sit down with an open mind and listen to the examples that I provided. To my ears, it's glaringly obvious.

Yes, I completely agree, Szell's Haydn conducting in Cleveland (but not so much in Vienna & Salzburg) is "utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth". But aren't "clenched teeth" just another way of saying his conducting is too stiff?, which is after all what happens when a person clenches their teeth, the jaw stiffens. So too does Haydn's music. By the way, the two examples that I provided in my previous post included Haydn's No. 88 from the "Paris" Symphonies. So, for any others that are interested, here are my links again, which easily represent the stiffest Haydn conducting I've ever heard, & surely I can't be the only one here that hears Szell's Haydn as overly stiff? considering that it is so extreme:










Heck148 writes, "Of, course, sloppy execution is not the intent, but often it comes off that way.....poor, imprecise execution, to me, and to where and how I was taught, does not further increased musical expression."

You asked about where Furtwangler's "taffy pulling" comes from?, & I merely answered your question: It comes directly from his being a strong adherent to Schenker's more psychologically oriented musical analysis. Which you didn't seem to know about, or understand, or if you did, I don't know why you would have asked the question. Schenker is not a footnote in Furtwängler's career, he had a major influence on the conductor, and therefore, on the conducting style that we hear on most of Furtwängler's records (as did Arthur Nikisch, and one of Wagner's proteges, Felix Motti). Indeed, Furtwängler worked closely with Schenker for 15 years! (between 1920-35). & one of the chief evidences for Schenker's strong influence over Furtwängler IS all the "taffy pulling" of the rhythms, whether you respond favorably to this less precise approach to music, or not.

But I wasn't trying to start an argument or be provocative, or defend or advocate on behalf of Schenkerian analysis, or Schenker's views on Furtwängler's Beethoven. Rather, I mostly kept my personal views out of it, except to say that I do think Schenkerian musical analysis can work well in the music of Bruckner, considering that Schenker was a pupil of Bruckner's; along with the excellent Bruckner recordings that I've heard from Furtwängler and Eugen Jochum (who was a disciple of Furtwängler & held his conducting as the gold standard, even though Jochum shows a greater classical restraint in his conducting style, nevertheless, Jochum likewise pulls the tempi around in Bruckner, & presumably also for expressive purposes--whether people agree with what he does, or not). But I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else that those musicians devoted to Schenkerian analysis are always successful. I'd rather leave that for others to decide for themselves, because we're not all going to agree on it, either way.

I wrote, "But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler."

Heck148 responded, "Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion...."

Again, I wasn't trying to argue on behalf or defend Schenker or his point of view, as you seem to have taken it. Although I will say now that such a view isn't "one man's opinion". A large number of notable composers and musicians--who by the way had no training in Schenkerian analysis--have similarly expressed a high opinion of Furtwängler's conducting, such as composers Arnold Schoenberg, Serge Prokofiev, Paul Hindemith, Bela Bartok, & Arthur Honegger, as well as musicians Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Pablo Casals, Yehudi Menuhin, Claudio Arrau, Maria Callas, Herbert von Karajan, Arturo Toscanini, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Eugen Jochum, Bruno Walter, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Daniel Barenboim, Sergui Celibidache, Vladimir Ashkenazy, & even George Szell!, etc. etc. So, it's hardly one man's opinion (i.e., Schenker's). Although I should point out that all of those musicians had the advantage of hearing Furtwängler conduct live in concert, or actually performed with him on stage. Which most likely makes a significant difference, since, in comparison, all we have are a bunch of lousy, single mic'd sound recordings. (Furtwängler had no patience for the recording process.)

Yet, in other quarters, Furtwangler does get criticized for being "criminally sloppy" and for having "lapses", ostensibly due to his unwillingness to rehearse. By all accounts, like Hans Knappertsbusch, Furtwängler wasn't interested in rehearsing much. & that is precisely what some critics (like David Hurwitz) have blamed his conducting style on--a sloppiness due to a lack of rehearsal time.

However, Hurwitz & others are basically wrong, because Furtwängler's "imperfections" are usually deliberate and happen due to the conductor's adherence to Schenkerian analysis, as mentioned. (In fact, his conducting scores are very detailed & thoughtfully considered.) & again, the intent or goal of Schenkerian analysis is to find a more meaningful and insightful musical expression. Which led the English critic Neville Cardus to write the following about Furtwangler's conducting style,

"He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realized subjectively..."*

In other words, to further quote conductor Henry Lewis,

"The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwangler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."* (* both quotes are drawn from Wikipedia)

But whether you or anyone else hears Furtwangler's conducting as a distillation of the essence or spirit of the music wasn't my point. I was simply answering your question.

Although, if I were to say what I personally think about Schenkerian analysis, yes, I have heard certain performances where Schenker's ideas do work well, at times, in my opinion. To the extent that I suspect some of Schenker's ideas do go back to the earlier 19th century, especially considering what I know about how Franz Liszt taught his pupils, for instance, which isn't dissimilar, and therefore, perhaps some of these ideas do even go back to Czerny, Beethoven, Haydn, & Mozart (& got passed down to Liszt, Bruckner, Schenker...). Especially when I consider how Schenkerian analysis can work, at times, in pianist Elizabeth Rich's survey of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, for example (along with her Haydn Piano Sonatas): 



. I also think that it can work well in Edward Aldwell & Samuel Feinberg's Bach playing: 



. But as always, there are varying degrees of application, and I do realize that when it is applied to an extreme, as with Furtwängler, it's not for everyone. I also know that some people dislike Rich's Mozart, and Aldwell's Bach, for the very reason that they do pull the rhythms around and don't keep a steady or precise beat, but at times slow down and then speed back up, rather willfully. Fair enough. I don't think it always works either, and personally, I wouldn't want these performances to be the only recordings of these works that I own in my collection (& they aren't). However, I do think that the devotees of Schenkarian analysis can sometimes offer valid & interesting insights into the deeper content of the music.

I'd also bet good money that if we could go back in time and hear Mozart play his own piano sonatas (or Bach his own keyboard works), that they would NOT have rigidly adhered to a strict, unwavering, uniform tempo throughout an entire piece. But would have instead pulled it around, here and there, for expressive purposes. In fact, I don't overly care for the other extreme--which is an ultra strict & inflexible approach to tempo, such as practiced by a pianist like Walter Klein in Mozart, or Carl Seeman in Bach, for example, and I can't imagine that Mozart & Bach would have either. With Klein & Seeman, the music so seldom breathes or relaxes. It's all so relentlessly forward driven & inflexible, & it can be exhausting to listen to in larger doses. (Though I do realize that some people are fans of this kind of playing, which is fine. I just hear the music so differently.)

Klein, Mozart: 



Seeman, Bach: 




At the same time, yes, I'd be very surprised if Mozart & Bach would have pulled the tempo around to the same extent that Furtwängler does, since the extremes of Furtwängler's conducting style are most likely a product of the late Romantic era, rather than the classical era.

Heck148 writes, "deeper psychological and emotional truths" - the positing of such is indeed extremely subjective - it begs the question - is the conductor performer just making it up??

Yes, I agree that at times he pulls & stretches the scores out in ways that can take the music into a realm where he's "just making it up". But, at other times, it is arguably connected to what he sees as a deeper musical content within the score--what the music is about. Even though I agree that it is a wildly expressionist method of conducting, as there is little classical restraint, or any uniform adherence to a steady, precise tempo.

For example, both Furtwangler and Koussevitsky draw out the "death note"--as it is sometimes called, at the end of the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 5th--to an extreme length that no other conductor I've heard has dared to do. Is that extreme length justified by the score? No, I don't think so. So, it represents a huge shift in tempo, and a long, long drawing out of a note to emphasize--or rather over emphasize, depending on your point of view--the note's primary importance and central role in the musical content & context of the symphony. Both conductors then build very slowly towards the transition into the 4th movement (which I agree with). The only way to explain what they're doing here, as I see it, is to say that they've both chosen to extend the duration of the "death note" for a greater expressive purpose--whether they're successful at it or not, that's their intent. Is it overdone? Of course, some will say that it is. Others, no. But do these two conductors understand the content of the music? Yes!, undoubtedly. The "death note" is unquestionably of great importance to a deeper psychological and emotional understanding of the musical content of the 5th. Does it need to be so overemphasized and stretched out to the point where not a single person in the concert hall could possibly miss it? No, probably not.

However, on the other hand, is that better than the multitude of conductors that I've heard in recent decades that don't even know the "death note" is there? who fly through this section so quickly that the note becomes little more than a blur? or gets almost completely drowned out by overly loud timpani? Yes, I think it is much, much better, because at least Furtwängler and Koussevitsky understood the content of the music. They're not clueless, like most conductors today, even if you don't agree with the extreme length that they take in their musical perception.

Although personally--if I were picking for my desert island--yes, I would prefer a conductor that shows a greater classical restraint and precision here. I don't think that a conductor needs to stretch out the "death note" to such an expressionist length, as Furtwängler & Koussevitsky do, in order for the passage to fully communicate a deeper meaning and greater expressiveness. Bernard Haitink, for example, doesn't take these kinds of liberties with Beethoven's score in the 5th, & what he does actually works better, IMO: 



. & I could say the same about Kurt Masur's last recording of the 5th with the New York Philharmonic (which is easily the best of Masur's three, in my view): 



, or Eugen Jochum's account of the 5th with the LSO (as well as Szell & the Concertgebouw in their 5th, which I've already mentioned favorably). These conductors show a much greater classical restraint than Furtwängler & Koussevitsky, & yet are still able to achieve a strong degree of musical understanding & expression in regards to the deeper meaning and content within Beethoven's score, without messing around with his tempo, or turning it into some drastically expressionist form of music making.

At the same time, I think many conductors today would do well to listen to Furtwängler and Koussevitsky's Beethoven 5th recordings, because, from my experience, too many of them totally miss the content of Beethoven's music in the transition between the 3rd & 4th movements--which is at the very heart & crux of the symphony, & the older conductors do spell it out, clearly. To the extent that if you're listening carefully and you have a brain, it's very hard, if not impossible to miss. So yes, I do believe that this kind of 'expressionist' conducting has its purpose, despite that, if I were a conductor, no, I wouldn't want to emulate the extremes to which both Furtwängler and Koussevitsky take the music. But at least they have passion and understanding, & that's not a minor thing, either.

But I'm not disagreeing with your points, otherwise. Obviously, I think they're perfectly valid. Though, at the same time, your musical training apparently didn't include an introduction to Schenkerian analysis. So, it is something foreign to your own approach to music, and not a part of your experience--whether you agree with Furtwängler's approach to music or not. Therefore, I wouldn't totally dismiss Schenkerian musical analysis, either. As it may have its value, even though obviously I understand that that is not how you & many other musicians were trained (including George Szell).

P.S. If you're open to hearing a Schenkerian oriented pianist seriously pull the rhythm around in Mozart, have a listen to this: 



. Do you or anyone else think that her less precise playing here is bad & misguided? or do you think that she offers some legitimate insights & perceptions into Mozart's intended subject matter--the area that exists beyond the mere ink blots on the page of Mozart's score?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Sounds pretty synonymous to me....


One is seeking the truth that lies within the music itself - its essence, its heart - the other is about seeking truth outside the music.

I don't listen to the Brahms 1st to solve world hunger. But I want to hear what it has to say in as close to an ideal realization as possible.

.


----------



## haziz

Josquin13 said:


> I was thinking of an LP box set that I owned briefly back in the 1980s, and specifically Szell's No. 88 in Cleveland. But you & Kreisler Jr. are right, I misremembered the contents of that set (sorry, it was a long time ago). I'm pretty sure that it did contain Symphony no. 88 though, and now that I think more about it, Haydn's symphonies in the 90s (93-98, perhaps). Which doesn't change my point of view. Szell fans rave about Szell's no. 88, 92, etc., yet in my nearly four decades of listening to classical music, I've never heard Haydn conducting that is so stiff. It's unusual, and distinctive. And therefore, it never fails to surprise me that others who listen to these same recordings don't hear Szell's stiffness (such as David Hurwitz, for example, who thinks that Szell's Haydn is the best out there!), or dismiss my view as being purely subjective. I don't see it as subjective. Not if you actually sit down with an open mind and listen to the examples that I provided. To my ears, it's glaringly obvious.
> 
> Yes, I completely agree, Szell's Haydn conducting in Cleveland (but not so much in Vienna & Salzburg) is "utterly lacking in charm - Haydn played through clenched teeth". But aren't "clenched teeth" just another way of saying his conducting is too stiff?, which is after all what happens when a person clenches their teeth, the jaw stiffens. So too does Haydn's music. By the way, the two examples that I provided in my previous post included Haydn's No. 88 from the "Paris" Symphonies. So, for any others that are interested, here are my links again, which easily represent the stiffest Haydn conducting I've ever heard, & surely I can't be the only one here that hears Szell's Haydn as overly stiff? considering that it is so extreme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck148 writes, "Of, course, sloppy execution is not the intent, but often it comes off that way.....poor, imprecise execution, to me, and to where and how I was taught, does not further increased musical expression."
> 
> You asked about where Furtwangler's "taffy pulling" comes from?, & I merely answered your question: It comes directly from his being a strong adherent to Schenker's more psychologically oriented musical analysis. Which you didn't seem to know about, or understand, or if you did, I don't know why you would have asked the question. Schenker is not a footnote in Furtwängler's career, he had a major influence on the conductor, and therefore, on the conducting style that we hear on most of Furtwängler's records (as did Arthur Nikisch, and one of Wagner's proteges, Felix Motti). Indeed, Furtwängler worked closely with Schenker for 15 years! (between 1920-35). & one of the chief evidences for Schenker's strong influence over Furtwängler IS in all the "taffy pulling" of the rhythms, whether you respond favorably to this less precise approach to music, or not.
> 
> But I wasn't trying to start a argument or be provocative, or defend or advocate on behalf of Schenkerian analysis, or Schenker's views on Furtwängler's Beethoven. Rather, I mostly kept my personal views out of it, except to say that I do think Schenkerian musical analysis can work well in the music of Bruckner, considering that Schenker was a pupil of Bruckner's; along with the excellent Bruckner recordings that I've heard from Furtwängler and Eugen Jochum (who was a disciple of Furtwängler & held his conducting as the gold standard, even though Jochum shows a greater classical restraint in his conducting style, nevertheless, Jochum likewise pulls the tempi around in Bruckner, & presumably also for expressive purposes--whether people agree with what he does, or not). But I wasn't trying to convince you or anyone else that those musicians devoted to Schenkerian analysis are always successful. I'd rather leave that for others to decide for themselves, because we're not all going to agree on it, either way.
> 
> I wrote, "But Schenker also once declared that no conductor understood Beethoven better than Furtwängler."
> 
> Heck148 responded, "Whoopee!! so what?? one man's opinion...."
> 
> Again, I wasn't trying to argue on behalf or defend Schenker or his point of view, as you seem to have taken it. Although I will say now that such a view is hardly "one man's opinion". A large number of notable composers and musicians--who by the way had no training in Schenkerian analysis--have similarly expressed a high opinion of Furtwängler's conducting, such as composers Arnold Schoenberg, Serge Prokofiev, Paul Hindemith, Bela Bartok, & Arthur Honegger, as well as musicians Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Pablo Casals, Yehudi Menuhin, Claudio Arrau, Maria Callas, Herbert von Karajan, Arturo Toscanini, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Otto Klemperer, Eugen Jochum, Bruno Walter, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Daniel Barenboim, Sergui Celibidache, Vladimir Ashkenazy, & even George Szell!, etc. etc. So, it's hardly one man's opinion (i.e., Schenker's). Although I should be point out that all of those musicians had the advantage of hearing Furtwängler conduct live in concert, or actually performed with him on stage. Which most likely makes a significant difference, since, in comparison, all we have are a bunch of lousy, single mic'd sound recordings. (Furtwängler had no patience for the recording process.)
> 
> Yet, in other quarters, Furtwangler does get criticized for being "criminally sloppy" and for having "lapses" due to his unwillingness to rehearse. By all accounts, like Hans Knappertsbusch, Furtwängler wasn't interested in rehearsing much. & that is precisely what some critics (like David Hurwitz) have blamed his conducting style on--a sloppiness due to a lack of rehearsal time.
> 
> However, Hurwitz & others are basically wrong, because Furtwängler's "imperfections" are usually deliberate and happen due to the conductor's adherence to Schenkerian analysis, as mentioned. (In fact, his conducting scores are very detailed & thoughtfully considered.) & again, the intent or goal of Schenkerian analysis is to find a more meaningful and insightful musical expression. Which led the English critic Neville Cardus to write the following about Furtwangler's conducting style,
> 
> "He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realized subjectively..."*
> 
> In other words, to further quote conductor Henry Lewis,
> 
> "The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwangler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."* (* both quotes are drawn from Wikipedia)
> 
> But whether you or anyone else hears Furtwangler's conducting as a distillation of the essence or spirit of the music wasn't my point. I was simply answering your question.
> 
> Although, if I were to say what I personally think about Schenkerian analysis, yes, I have heard certain performances where Schenker's ideas do work well, at times, in my opinion. To the extent that I suspect some of Schenker's ideas do go back to the earlier 19th century, especially considering what I know about how Franz Liszt taught his pupils, for instance, which isn't dissimilar, and therefore, perhaps some of these ideas do even go back to Czerny, Beethoven, Haydn, & Mozart (& got passed down to Liszt, Bruckner, Schenker...). Especially when I consider how Schenkerian analysis can work, at times, in pianist Elizabeth Rich's survey of Mozart's Piano Sonatas, for example (along with her Haydn Piano Sonatas):
> 
> 
> 
> . I also think that it can work well in Edward Aldwell & Samuel Feinberg's Bach playing:
> 
> 
> 
> . But as always, there are various degrees of application, and I do realize that when it is applied to an extreme, as with Furtwängler, it's not for everyone. I also know that some people dislike Rich's Mozart, and Aldwell's Bach, for the very reason that they do pull the rhythms around and don't keep a steady or precise beat, but at times slow down and then speed back up, rather willfully. Fair enough. I don't think it always works either, and personally, I wouldn't want these performances to be the only recordings of these works that I own in my collection (& they aren't). However, I do think that the devotees of Schenkarian analysis can sometimes offer valid & interesting insights into the deeper content of the music.
> 
> I'd also bet good money that if we could go back in time and hear Mozart play his own piano sonatas (or Bach his own keyboard works), that they would NOT have rigidly adhered to a strict, unwavering, uniform tempo throughout an entire piece. But would have instead pulled it around, here and there, for expressive purposes. In fact, I don't overly care for the other extreme--which is an ultra strict & inflexible approach to tempo, such as practiced by a pianist like Walter Klein in Mozart, or Carl Seeman in Bach, for example, and I can't imagine that Mozart & Bach would have either. With Klein & Seeman, the music so seldom breathes or relaxes. It's all so relentlessly forward driven & inflexible, & it can be exhausting to listen to in larger doses. (Though I do realize that some people are fans of this kind of playing, which is fine. I just hear the music so differently!)
> 
> Klein, Mozart:
> 
> 
> 
> Seeman, Bach:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the same time, yes, I'd be very surprised if Mozart & Bach would have pulled the tempo around to the same extent that Furtwängler does, since the extremes of Furtwängler's conducting style are most likely a product of the late Romantic era, rather than the classical era.
> 
> Heck148 writes, "deeper psychological and emotional truths" - the positing of such is indeed extremely subjective - it begs the question - is the conductor performer just making it up??
> 
> Yes, I agree that at times he pulls & stretches the scores out in ways that can take the music into a realm where he's "just making it up". But, at other times, it is arguably connected to what he sees as a deeper musical content within the score--what the music is about. Even though I agree that it is a wildly expressionist method of conducting, as there is little classical restraint, or any uniform adherence to a steady, precise tempo.
> 
> For example, both Furtwangler and Koussevitsky draw out the "death note"--as it is sometimes called, at the end of the 3rd movement of Beethoven's 5th--to an extreme length that no other conductor I've heard has dared to do. Is that extreme length justified by the score? No, I don't think so. So, it represents a huge shift in tempo, and a long, long drawing out of a note to emphasize--or rather over emphasize, depending on your point of view--the note's primary importance and central role in the musical content & context of the symphony. Both conductors then build very slowly towards the transition into the 4th movement (which I agree with). The only way to explain what they're doing here, as I see it, is to say that they've both chosen to extend the duration of the "death note" for a greater expressive purpose--whether they're successful at it or not, that's their intent. Is it overdone? Of course, some will say that it is. Others, no. But do these two conductors understand the content of the music? Yes!, undoubtedly. The "death note" is unquestionably of great importance to a deeper psychological and emotional understanding of the musical content of the 5th. Does it need to be so overemphasized and stretched out to the point where not a single person in the concert hall could possibly miss it? No, probably not.
> 
> However, on the other hand, is that better than the multitude of conductors that I've heard in recent decades that don't even know the "death note" is there? who fly through this section so quickly that the note becomes little more than a blur? or gets almost completely drowned out by overly loud timpani? Yes, I think it is much, much better, because at least Furtwängler and Koussevitsky understood the content of the music. They're not clueless, like most conductors today, even if you don't agree with the extreme lengths that they take in their musical perceptions.
> 
> Although personally--if I were picking for my desert island--yes, I would prefer a conductor that shows a greater classical restraint here. I don't think that a conductor needs to stretch out the "death note" to such an expressionist length, as Furtwängler & Koussevitsky do, in order for the passage to fully communicate a deeper meaning and greater expressiveness. Bernard Haitink, for example, doesn't take these kinds of liberties with Beethoven's score in the 5th, & what he does actually works better, IMO:
> 
> 
> 
> . & I could say the same about Kurt Masur's last recording of the 5th with the New York Philharmonic (which is easily his best of Masur's three, in my view):
> 
> 
> 
> , or Eugen Jochum's account of the 5th with the LSO. These conductors show a much greater classical restraint than Furtwängler & Koussevitsky, & yet are still able to achieve a strong degree of musical understanding & expression in regards to the deeper meaning and content within Beethoven's score, without messing around with his tempo, or turning it into some drastically expressionist form of music making.
> 
> At the same time, I think many conductors today would do well to listen to Furtwängler and Koussevitsky's Beethoven 5th recordings, because, from my experience, too many of them totally miss the content of Beethoven's music in the transition between the 3rd & 4th movements--which is at the very heart & crux of the symphony, & the older conductors do really spell it out, very clearly. To the extent that if you're listening carefully and you have a brain, it's very hard, if not impossible to miss. So yes, I do believe that this kind of 'expressionist' conducting has its purpose, despite that, if I were a conductor, no, I wouldn't want to emulate the extremes to which both Furtwängler and Koussevitsky take the music. But at least they have passion and understanding, & that's not a minor thing, either.
> 
> But I'm not disagreeing with your points, otherwise. Obviously, I think they're perfectly valid. Though, at the same time, your musical training apparently didn't include an introduction to Schenkerian analysis. So, it is something foreign to your own approach to music, and not a part of your experience--whether you agree with Furtwängler's approach to music or not. Therefore, I wouldn't totally dismiss Schenkerian musical analysis, either. As it may have its value, even though obviously I understand that that is not how you & many other musicians were trained (including George Szell).
> 
> P.S. If you're open to hearing a Schenkarian oriented pianist seriously pull the rhythm around in Mozart, have a listen to this:
> 
> 
> 
> . Do you or anyone else think that her imprecise playing here is bad & misguided? or do you think that she offers some legitimate insights & perceptions into Mozart's intended subject matter--the area that exists beyond the mere ink blots on the page of Mozart's score?


How long did it take you to write this dissertation?


----------



## Shaughnessy

amfortas said:


> I'm really surprised they didn't go with the "Cleveland Szells." You'd think the whole city would get behind honoring one if its most distinguished figures.


Even better - the "Cleveland Szellots" - when you combine Szell with zealots magic is made... well... maybe not "magic".... but it sure is kind of catchy.


----------



## Shaughnessy

Deleted post - complete duplicate of post above - Why? - Who knows.... probably "operator error".


----------



## Heck148

wkasimer said:


> How many conductors would fit on the head of a pin?


Or, how many conductors are _pinheads_?? :lol::devil:
[alot, many]


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

I took one semester of conducting in grad school. One day we were each taking turns with the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th. When I did the downbeat for the opening chord, I did sort of an uncertain jiggle. I wasn't consciously trying to be Furtwangler or anything, I was simply portraying what I heard in my head and wanted from the group. The professor immediately stopped me and directed me to do a simple, clear down beat so that there would be no question as to when to enter. I did it the way he said, and I was not happy at all with the way it sounded. I didn't want to simply make sure everyone came in together. I was wanting something different in the character and sound of that chord. It's not as simple as "applying" a rhetorical device. You have to feel it and internalize it. This informs your movements. So yes, there absolutely is a tradeoff depending on what you choose to emphasize.

When I hear Szell, I hear an emphasis on precision, in that same exact chord in fact, and I think the music calls for something deeper.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> One is seeking the truth that lies within the music itself - its essence, its heart - .....


" the truth that lies within the music itself"

IOW - _subjective truth_. Thank you.



> I don't listen to the Brahms 1st to solve world hunger.


right, you are listening for the _subjective truth _that you posit "exists" within the music....right, we get it.


----------



## Heck148

Sunburst Finish said:


> Even better - the "Cleveland Szellots" -


That's good!! lol!! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> right, you are listening for the _subjective truth _that you posit "exists" within the music....right, we get it.


Which means its true essence, which is the exact opposite of something extra-musical!!!


----------



## Merl

Wow, Jos, you write a lot on most threads but even by your standards that was a mammoth post. :lol:


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sunburst Finish said:


> Even better - the "Cleveland Szellots"


I'd buy that jersey.


----------



## Knorf

Claiming that one conductor has access to "deeper musical truths" over others is such absolute inane silliness that anyone who espouses such a claim deserves to be slapped about the head and face until they cease and desist. :lol:

Some prefer one conductor's approach, others another, and that's it, except that the conductor typically gets more credit than they quite deserve. It's all just taste, simple, banal taste, with or without attempts at justifying the preference, with or without employing vapid rhetoric or empty pseudophilosophy. In terms of the latter, I prefer without. 

I like Szell's recordings. I like his better than Furtwängler's, because I find the latter to be on occasion sloppy, boring, and predictable. YMMV. 

Who knows which of the two I'd prefer to play for. I'll never know.

(ETA: disclaimer, I'm not really advocating that someone who makes silly remarks on a classical music message board should be harmed physically. Er, probably not.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Claiming that one conductor has access to "deeper musical truths" over others is such absolute inane silliness that anyone who espouses such a claim deserves to be slapped about the head and face until they cease and desist. :lol:


Man, straw men have sure taken a beating in this thread.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which means its true essence, which is the exact opposite of something extra-musical!!!


Right, True essence = subjective truth.....we get it already....just not buying it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Right, True essence = subjective truth.....we get it already....just not buying it.


So what's the counter to what I'm saying? The score is self-evident? There's no such thing as an ideal, it's all just random?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> Claiming that one conductor has access to "deeper musical truths" over others is such absolute inane silliness that anyone who espouses such a claim deserves to be slapped about the head and face until they cease and desist. :lol:


"one conductor has access to "deeper musical truths" over others" = "one conductor does 




better than others"


----------



## Knorf

Oof. I can't disagree that Victor Borge had access to the deepest and greatest and truest essential musical truths.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> Oof. I can't disagree that Victor Borge had access to the deepest and greatest and truest essential musical truths.


Victor Borge was a mere mechanical time-beater (* slaps Knorf around the face). James Last, on the other hand, put himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. Borge reads off in strict dictation like a stenographer. 



Heck148 said:


> No, it is Merl's...i find it quite fitting...


Maybe I can't be seen.


----------



## premont

Merl said:


> *Victor Borge* was a mere mechanical time-beater (* slaps Knorf around the face). *James Last*, on the other hand, put himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. Borge reads off in strict dictation like a stenographer.


But who was Victor, and how long shall the memory of James last?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So what's the counter to what I'm saying?


I think Knorf's reply is right on the $$:



Knorf said:


> Claiming that one conductor has access to "deeper musical truths" over others is such absolute inane silliness......


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I think Knorf's reply is right on the $$:


But that's not my claim.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Victor Borge was a mere mechanical time-beater (* slaps Knorf around the face). James Last, on the other hand, put himself in the shoes of the composer speaking to the audience. Borge reads off in strict dictation like a stenographer.


We can all agree, I'm sure, that Florence Foster Jenkins plumbed the depths of all music she performed....her rendition of "Queen of the Night" aria revealed the profound philosophical truth of Mozart's creation!! lol!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> her rendition of "Queen of the Night" aria revealed the profound philosophical truth of Mozart's creation!! lol!!


How old are you?


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> We can all agree, I'm sure, that Florence Foster Jenkins plumbed the depths of all music she performed....her rendition of "Queen of the Night" aria revealed the profound philosophical truth of Mozart's creation!! lol!!


I dunno, have you ever heard Shura Gehrman's Schubert Lieder? Sounds like someone's trapped his fingers in a door. Lol. I don't do lieder anyway but that is painful. I have it on that Brilliant Classics Schubert box. I once used it to clear the house after a party. Worked a treat.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How old are you?


Btw, Borge also asks a kid "How old are you?" at around 1:10 in the video I cited in [Post#130]. What I wanted to say with that post was "I think people in this thread are getting too serious they need to laugh and relax a bit, LOL! Both Szell and Furtwängler were equally great at their trade -why is there a need to quarrel over this issue?"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> Both Szell and Furtwängler were equally great at their trade -why is there a need to quarrel over this issue?"


Ask the people insisting on a continuous straw man argument. I made my opinion known pages ago. Apparently I'm not entitled to it.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ask the people insisting on a continuous straw man argument. I made my opinion known pages ago. Apparently I'm not entitled to it.


Two hints for you, in hope of learning and growing:

1) Your _opinion_, such as it is, was never the problem. 
2) It _is not_ an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy when people are calling you out on or disputing what you _literally wrote_, or very close, accurate-within-reason parahrases of what you wrote. If you're unhappy with responses to what you wrote, it's on you to clarify what you mean.

Misapplication of straw man fallacy accusations, and false claims that you're not entitled your opinion, are neither doing you any good at all nor are they fooling anyone who can go back and read exactly what you wrote. Gaslighting will not help you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Two hints for you, in hope of learning and growing:
> 
> 1) Your _opinion_, such as it is, was never the problem.
> 2) It _is not_ an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy when people are calling you out on or disputing what you _literally wrote_, or very close, accurate-within-reason parahrases of what you wrote. If you're unhappy with responses to what you wrote, it's on you to clarify what you mean.
> 
> Misapplication of straw man fallacy accusations, and false claims that you're not entitled your opinion, are neither doing you any good at all nor are they fooling anyone who can go back and read exactly what you wrote. Gaslighting will not help you.


1) I never said that music contains philosophical truth. That is a distortion of my description of a perfect performance existing in the abstract that the performer is trying to achieve. And the distortion is a sophomoric attempt by a certain poster to "win" points.

2) I never said that one conductor has possession of the "truth" and others don't. I have said that he and others seek the inner depth of a musical score as a philosophy, and certain others treat the score as self-evident. This is not a news flash.

3) I don't care what "problem" you have with me. You're not going to bully me on this forum. Why don't you stick to discussion of the music? The simplest way to avoid straw man accusations is to quote someone directly as opposed to putting your own self-serving spin on their argument.

.


----------



## Knorf

Well, my friends, I tried.

Getting back to this thread's actual topic, one of the demonstration recordings I like to use is Szell's Cleveland recording of Smetana's Overture to _The Bartered Bride_, mastered for SACD. It's just a spectacularly vivid performance and recording! Szell's Mendelssohn _Midsummer Night's Dream_ suite is similarly great, just sensationally good.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1) I never said that music contains philosophical truth. That is a distortion of my description of a perfect performance existing in the abstract that the performer is trying to achieve. And the distortion is a sophomoric attempt by a certain poster to "win" points.
> 
> 2) I never said that one conductor has possession of the "truth" and others don't. I have said that he and others seek the inner depth of a musical score as a philosophy, and certain others treat the score as self-evident. This is not a news flash.
> 
> 3) I don't care what "problem" you have with me. You're not going to bully me on this forum. Why don't you stick to discussion of the music? The simplest way to avoid straw man accusations is to quote someone directly as opposed to putting your own self-serving spin on their argument.
> 
> .


I think your 2nd point is the one in contention, in relation to Szell.

From Szell's biographer, himself a conductor:

"His personal goal was to approach each score with the clearest possible understanding of the composer's style and intentions."

http://georgeszell.com/a-personal-reminiscence/

In other words, he was not a literalist

"What he said of Toscanini could also be said of Szell: "That he was a literalist in the trivial sense of the word is, I believe, nonsense. It is not possible for an artist like Toscanini to be a literalist; he was, I would rather say, a truth-seeker." "


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

If someone has a problem with what I said about Szell, be a man and say so rather than distort and embellish on my point in an attempt to teach me a lesson and bully me out of ever saying something “out of line” again.

I stand by everything I have said about Szell. I actually don’t find him cold. The playing in the Marcia funebre of his Eroica is very sensitive and beautiful. But I find the interpretation two-dimensional. As I said on page one, IMO he barely skims the surface. Others find more depth, NOT just Furtwängler.

Does that mean I hate Szell? Not at all. His R. Strauss is superb, especially the Don Juan. His Slavonic Dances are my favorite next to Talich. But even in these works, I like Szell realizing these are works where there is a limit on the interpretive depth to be had.

That’s my take, and if anyone has a problem with it they can kiss my fanny, but DO NOT go around trying to embellish on my statements and go straw man.

That’s the coward’s way.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's my take, and if anyone has a problem with it they can *kiss my fanny,*.. . .






> . . . .. .. . ............. [.. /QUOTE]


----------



## SONNET CLV

Whatever is said in this thread of George Szell one way or another, I stand by my contention that my absolute favorite recorded version of one of my absolute favorite symphonies, the "From the New World" by Antonín Dvořák, is the recording made by George Szell with the Cleveland Orchestra in March of 1959, near the close of the Cleveland's 41st season, at Severance Hall.









This recording, from "back in the day" when the "New World Symphony" was known as number 5, is one of the symphonic pieces that early grabbed my attention as "classical music" and held me in its grip from that first hearing till ... now, and onward.

If I had to live with only one Dvořák recording, this one would be my choice.

If I had to live with only one Szell recording, ... ditto.


----------



## haziz

SONNET CLV said:


> Whatever is said in this thread of George Szell one way or another, I stand by my contention that my absolute favorite recorded version of one of my absolute favorite symphonies, the "From the New World" by Antonín Dvořák, is the recording made by George Szell with the Cleveland Orchestra in March of 1959, near the close of the Cleveland's 41st season, at Severance Hall.
> 
> View attachment 157606
> 
> 
> This recording, from "back in the day" when the "New World Symphony" was known as number 5, is one of the symphonic pieces that early grabbed my attention as "classical music" and held me in its grip from that first hearing till ... now, and onward.
> 
> If I had to live with only one Dvořák recording, this one would be my choice.
> 
> If I had to live with only one Szell recording, ... ditto.


An excellent recording of a superb masterpiece. His recordings of Dvorak's Symphonies Nos. 7 & 8 as well as the Slavonic Dances are also superb. His recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto accompanying Fournier on the cello, this time with the Berlin Philharmonic, is my all time favorite recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto.


----------



## SONNET CLV

haziz said:


> An excellent recording of a superb masterpiece. His recordings of Dvorak's Symphonies Nos. 7 & 8 as well as the Slavonic Dances are also superb. His recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto accompanying Fournier on the cello, this time with the Berlin Philharmonic, is my all time favorite recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto.


The final three Dvořák symphonies are available in a 2-CD set which also features some music by Smetana, all conducted by Szell:









That disc is also in my collection. Unfortunately, I do not have the Fournier performance in my collection, but I'm looking into picking it up. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Radames

haziz said:


> An excellent recording of a superb masterpiece. His recordings of Dvorak's Symphonies Nos. 7 & 8 as well as the Slavonic Dances are also superb. His recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto accompanying Fournier on the cello, this time with the Berlin Philharmonic, is my all time favorite recording of the Dvorak Cello Concerto.


Yes - that is also my favorite Dvorak Cello Concerto. Szell's Dvorak Symphonies are the best. Too bad the earlier ones were not popular then and he never recorded them. My favorite Szell recording is his Beethoven 3rd. Never equaled to this day.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Merl said:


> . . . .. .. . ............. [.. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> I think "fanny" means something rather different in Britain than it does in the USA
Click to expand...


----------



## SanAntone

Is George Szell one of your favorite conductors?

No.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Is George Szell one of your favorite conductors?

Absolutely Yes. In fact I would say Szell is my favorites conductor


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1) I never said that music contains philosophical truth. That is a distortion of my description of a perfect performance existing in the abstract that the performer is trying to achieve. And the distortion is a sophomoric attempt by a certain poster to "win" points.
> 
> 2) I never said that one conductor has possession of the "truth" and others don't. I have said that he and others seek the inner depth of a musical score as a philosophy, and certain others treat the score as self-evident. This is not a news flash.
> 
> 3) I don't care what "problem" you have with me. You're not going to bully me on this forum. Why don't you stick to discussion of the music? The simplest way to avoid straw man accusations is to quote someone directly as opposed to putting your own self-serving spin on their argument.
> 
> .





Brahmsianhorn said:


> But that's not my claim.


With all due respect, you do not have enough of a sound philosophical basis for your thoughts (this is why you feel everyone misinterprets you - it's because you don't use language consistently, as we've argued about in the past) to not rub people up the wrong way when you post such loaded responses all the time whenever a thread pops up celebrating a conductor who isn't Fartwangler.

I was looking forward to reading about Szell, not Brahmsianhorn or Fartwangler.

As for Szell, he was great no question. Some similarities with Karajan in precision and 'glossy' sound but Szell's sound was better overall I think in avoiding the 'Karajan soup'. His interpretations were often very fine indeed, but wouldn't quite be my first choice most of the time. He certainly wasn't a mere time-beater.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> whenever a thread pops up celebrating a conductor who isn't *Fart*wangler.
> I was looking forward to reading about Szell, not Brahmsianhorn or *Fart*wangler.


And now you're using this as an excuse to do your favorite name-calling. A disgrace to the (arguably) greatest conductor of the German repertoire.



RogerWaters said:


> I can tell I'm going to get the word 'furtwangler' thrown at me


Yes, you know it and you enjoy it; gets you more chances to call him 'fartwangler'.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> A disgrace to the (arguably) greatest conductor of the German repertoire.


Can't make everybody happy, but that statement comes across to me as a disgrace to all those great conductors of the German repertoire i hear as better than Furtwangler, like Walter, Bohm, Klemperer, Karajan. I hear Furtwangler as more mechanical than Szell, but that's just me.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Phil loves classical said:


> I hear Furtwangler as more mechanical than Szell, but that's just me.


I think this is a very uncommon use of the association of "mechanical". There can be hardly any doubt that e.g. Furtwangler is far more flexible in tempo and generally more unpredictable. You are of course free to dis/like either of them but to claim that "mechanical" would characterize a "wayward" conductor better than a rather rigid one, is not very plausible.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Kreisler jr said:


> I think this is a very uncommon use of the association of "mechanical". There can be hardly any doubt that e.g. Furtwangler is far more flexible in tempo and generally more unpredictable. You are of course free to dis/like either of them but to claim that "mechanical" would characterize a "wayward" conductor better than a rather rigid one, is not very plausible.


By mechanical I include his accelerandos/ ritardandos, dynamics, etc. I don't hear as much phrasing of lines as in many conductors. He is like a robot machine to me mimicking human emotion, in general.


----------



## Knorf

Phil loves classical said:


> By mechanical I include his accelerandos/ ritardandos, dynamics, etc. I don't hear as much phrasing of lines as in many conductors. He is like a robot machine to me mimicking human emotion, in general.


I think I get what you're saying. For me the problem with Furtwängler is how predictable his choices are. I was taken with some of his recordings on the first listen, but found for me that they didn't wear well. He always does the same things: brass get louder, go faster // strings play big melody, go slower // it's softer, go slower // woodwinds doing stuff, again, ugh??? I DUNNO I guess twiddle thumbs until brass loud go faster.

That for me summarizes Furtwängler's playbook.

I guess the words I would use to describe how Furtwängler's conducting sounds to me: artificial and contrived (and also weirdly sloppy in terms of ensemble and intonation.) It does sort of resemble how one might program MIDI to attempt making it sound musical.

I'm well aware many love what Furtwängler did, and this includes many musicians I admire. But I'm not a fan.

Give me Szell any day.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

This is one of those things where even Furtwangler detractors will agree that he was very subjective and in the moment, to the point that his various performances varied widely, even those made in back to back days. I mean that was the whole point. He left things for the inspiration of the moment. Whereas with Szell everything sounds pre-scripted and doesn't vary much from performance to performance. Aside from decisions over tempo, I don't hear Szell doing very much interpretively.

Now, if you are going to say that the things Furtwangler did sounded intuitively "correct" - a sentiment I agree with - and that it therefore sounded obvious and predictable, that would be an interesting way of putting it. I guess the question becomes what are you looking for when you listen? Furtwangler himself said that he saw his interpretations as "honest." He was not trying to mangle the music in any way. Maybe that's boring to some.


----------



## Knorf

To all who say they prefer Furtwängler over other options, who can argue with that? I won't. I just don't share that preference.

What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.

I also object to not-Furtwängler being labelled derisively as "pre-scripted," because in general it's all decided in advance. Everything! That's how professionals do it.

For professionals, it is always about very minute, careful, thoughtful, and repetitive preparation. Szell, Reiner, Karajan, Haitink, Skrowaczewski, Chailly, Klemperer, Muti, Jansons, Berglund, MTT, Abbado, Bernstein, Alsop, Maazel: all of them. Some of their choices work for me, other don't. Furtwängler's mostly don't. YMMV. But leaving too much to chance (unless you're John Cage) or actual, in fact spontaneity is a recipe for disaster. Furtwängler admittedly flirted with the edge of this, which is why so much of what he did to my ears sounds really, unlistenably sloppy. But his interpetive choices over the years are actually far too consistent to not have been studied. Relying on the moment means you lean most heavily on old, well-established habits, whether good or bad.

"From the heart," "intuitive," "spontaneous": that's all an illusion. You will never really know from a performance or recording whether the conductor adored the work they're performing, or detested it. That's called being a professional. But everything is prepared in advance; that's why we have rehearsals. In general Furtwängler created a myth at odds with the reality.

Mostly what the musicians are doing in performance in their head is counting a lot and hoping they don't screw it up. How much emotion do you bring to the table, when you're focused and concentrating on simple counting? Here's the rub: if you're not sure what the conductor is going to do, because you haven't rehearsed enough, you have to concentrate and count _more_. Musicians play more confidentally and boldly when they're well rehearsed, and play it safe and spend even more time counting when they're not.

In short, the Furtwängler myth of getting more spontaneous performances from fewer rehearsals is total, abject nonsense on multiple levels. Far more was studied and clearly pre-arranged than the myth allows.

You know what spontaneous (i.e. under-rehearsed) performances sound like, even of standard repertoire? Timid, under-played, careful, boring, sloppy crapola.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Never said and have never read that Furtwängler performances were under-rehearsed. But it is well-known he took liberties in the moment and by his own admission left things for live inspiration. He didn’t care if this led to occasional ensemble inaccuracies. Whereas with Szell it sounds to my ear like he is putting a great amount of emphasis on precision and clarity, to the detriment of a feeling of inspiration and spontaneity. To each their own. Just compare video of the two men conducting, and it’s obvious that one valued clarity and one was seeking something else.

I’m sure members of community orchestras are thinking mainly if not exclusively about counting and being together. The members of the Berlin Philharmonic, at least in Furtwängler’s day, were interested in something more.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just compare video of the two men conducting, and it's obvious that one valued clarity and one was seeking something else.


That's fair.



> I'm sure members of community orchestras are thinking mainly if not exclusively about counting and being together. The members of the Berlin Philharmonic, at least in Furtwängler's day, were interested in something more.


Nope. This is false. You have to count like crazy; the other option is screwing up.

There is literature about the importance of counting in the performance of music going back to the Baroque period, if not earlier. All professional musicians are counting more or less all the time, I guarantee it.

And the Berliner Philharmoniker was never, ever any different, because they're all just humans, too. Furtwängler wasn't some magical fairy who could make people play together with nothing more than his vague twirling gestures. It's just a fact that the more uncertain you are about what's happening on the podium, the more carefully you must count. It's true now and it was undoubtedly true then.

Learn to separate myth from reality.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I bigly enjoy the Furtwängler discussions, especially when they are so well-argued as the posts on this thread are.

I have no dog in this fight, but I will say that I have had two road to Damascus moments in my journey through classical music and they both concern WF. 

I had a huge 'Wagner moment' when Tristan finally snapped into focus and I realised it to to be the incredible experience that the work can be (listening to the 1952 London studio performance); and secondly, I experienced a total Zen-like transcendental out of body experience during a listen the 1954 Lucern Festival performance of Beethoven 9.

As I said, I have no dog in this fight and I rarely talk about Furtwängler or even own many recordings, but there is something spooky about his art ..............


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It’s not a myth. By definition the tempo fluctuations required feeling the changes together in the moment, and they weren’t done the same way every performance.


----------



## HenryPenfold

I don't know if Szell's a 'favourite conductor' for me, but I will say that he holds an important place in my journey through classical music. Principally GS was my introduction to Mahler 4 & 6 and his Cleveland recordings were my gotos for many years.

I adore his Beethoven overtures and his Walton symphony #2 and Partita are unsurpassable.

His Wagner orchestral excerpts were almost as important to me down the years as Klemperer's.

I revel in his Brahms and his Egmont, PC 3 & symphony 5 on Orfeo is to die for!


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not a myth. By definition the tempo fluctuations required feeling the changes together in the moment, and they weren't done the same way every performance.


You still have to count. And in fact you have to count _more_ when things aren't consistent or are under-rehearsed. That's just a fact.

And...I can't believe I let myself get sucked into another Furtwängler debate. Ugh.


----------



## fbjim

Knorf said:


> To all who say they prefer Furtwängler over other options, who can argue with that? I won't. I just don't share that preference.
> 
> What I object to are statements that Furtwängler's tempo fluctuations and other liberties represent anything more inherently or objectively "intuitive," "honest," or "deeply felt." That they do not. If you like those choices, great, who can argue. But others are not necessarily less or more of those same qualities just for making different choices.


If there's something I object to, it's along the lines of this. What Furtwangler is doing is providing Furtwangler's interpretation of Beethoven. He is expressing the emotional affect he feels in the music through his interpretive options. To an extent all conductors do this.

The point of protest is that somehow what Furtwangler is doing is not expressing _his personal_ interpretation of the music, but is instead doing some sort of ego death and expressing "the truth" of the music. As if Furtwangler, through his interpretive choices, and his expression of how he believes the music should affect the listener, is somehow actually less interventionist because he is letting the "truth" of the music shine through. This is silly. Furtwangler is expressing _his_ truth, not _the_ truth.


----------



## Knorf

fbjim said:


> Furtwangler is expressing _his_ truth, not _the_ truth.


Well said! Thanks.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> By definition the tempo fluctuations required feeling the changes together in the moment...


The more I contemplate the implications of this, the more absurd I think it is.

What, do you think humans are shoals of herring? Or flocks of starlings?

Hint: no such luck. Humans are primates. We require instructions.

Or maybe Furtwängler was telepathic! That must be it. Maybe he shot powerful, magic rays from his eyes that controlled people's actions! :lol:

No such luck, I'm afraid.

The weird truth is: you want things to sound "spontaneous"? Then you have to to rehearse _more_.

It's a paradox, but it's the truth. Otherwise you are able to only lean on old habits, good or bad, and an orchestra will paradoxically play more carefully and more sloppily, and either way in other regards what happens is totally predictable, because it'll be just how it went before, i.e. the opposite of spontaneous.

And musicians always have to count.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

fbjim said:


> As if Furtwangler, through his interpretive choices, and his expression of how he believes the music should affect the listener, is somehow actually less interventionist because he is letting the "truth" of the music shine through. This is silly. Furtwangler is expressing _his_ truth, not _the_ truth.


You're preaching to the choir here. Furtwangler was from the subjectivist school.

It was Toscanini who claimed to be producing accurate, "objective" accounts of the composer's intentions. That was a bunch of cackie poo. Toscanini was just as subjective and interventionist as anyone. His clipped, martinet-like Beethoven interpretations were singularly, unmistakably his own. They have less in common with any other conductor than Furtwangler, Jochum, and Abendroth had with each other.


----------



## Knorf

Other than the polemical characterization deriding his Beethoven, I largely agree with you about Toscanini. 

True objectivity is as much an illusion in music (or in anything humans do) as the idea that conductors are expressing emotions via their conducting. 

The scientific method is necessary because humans cannot be objective.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Knorf said:


> Other than the polemical characterization deriding his Beethoven, I largely agree with you about Toscanini.
> 
> True objectivity is as much an illusion in music (or in anything humans do) as the idea that conductors are expressing emotions via their conducting.
> 
> The scientific method is necessary because humans cannot be objective.


I think Human beings can be 'truly objective'.

When I say "I enjoyed that meal" that is a completely objective statement (eg "that was a good meal" is not an objective statement).

Thinking about Popper, falsification is the key.


----------



## Red Terror

Szell was one of greatest conductors ever .. Period.


----------



## Knorf

I wasn't going for absolutes. I can objectively say that I exist, after all.

ETA: Would you accept, "humans struggle to be objective"?


----------



## Merl

Red Terror said:


> Szell was one of greatest conductors ever .. Period.


Is this thread about Szell? Are you sure? :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Is this thread about Szell? Are you sure? :lol:


It does seem to me there really shouldn't be much controversy about Szell. His career was decades ago; he had an undeniably great career, even to detractors; some people really like his recordings and some don't. I do. He achieved a degree of clarity and polished orchestra virtuosity with Cleveland that has very rarely ever been matched.

Szell's recording with Cleveland of the Notturno movement from Mendelssohn's incidental music to _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ is one of the most magical moments in all of recorded music that I can think of! And the Overture and Scherzo are demonstration class, for both recording and orchestral virtuosity.


----------



## Michael122

Szell's Brahms symphony cycle was simple, brilliant, and simply brilliant- as was his orchestra.


----------



## perempe

Interesting fact:
Szél means wind (in Hungarian), his family name is just written differently.
pronunciation


----------



## Phil loves classical

On the discussion of spontaneity, Charles Munch was well known for the spontaneity in concert. Beethoven's 5th has lost all of its spontaneity for me over the years, but Munch's version made it fresh for me and is the only version I listen to from time to time now.

"When you played a concert with Charles Munch or attended one of his performances as a listener, it was not just a concert - It was an event. He never used the same palette twice. As a player, you had to give 110% of yourself, or be left out of the music."

-Vic Firth, percussionist, Boston Symphony Orchestra


----------



## Merl

Szell demanded a lot from his players but they often delivered. Tbh, he's got a pretty high strike-rate for me. I even like his Schumann cycle even though he made some cuts and alterations to 'improve' its clarity (did he really need to?). I liked his forthright approach especially in Brahms.


----------



## Heck148

Phil loves classical said:


> On the discussion of spontaneity, Charles Munch was well known for the spontaneity in concert. Beethoven's 5th has lost all of its spontaneity for me over the years, but Munch's version made it fresh for me and is the only version I listen to from time to time now.
> 
> "When you played a concert with Charles Munch or attended one of his performances as a listener, it was not just a concert - It was an event. He never used the same palette twice. As a player, you had to give 110% of yourself, or be left out of the music."
> 
> -Vic Firth, percussionist, Boston Symphony Orchestra


Yes, Munch probably takes the prize for spontaneity in concert....He loved to do it, and deliberately would do things differently in performance...this could be very exciting at a live concert, on recording, the imprecision and inaccuracies can be annoying on repeated listening...
the former bass trombone player of BSO told me that Munch loved to pull fast ones in Berlioz "Symphonie Fantastique"...the closing bars of mvt V, with the descending trombone roulades were a favorite place - he would speed up, or slow down, always different....always with a twinkle in his eye...he knew exactly what he was doing....the trombones rarely got it together, it was most always sloppy and imprecise....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck,

Do you have any impressions/stories about Koussevitzky?

His concert recording of the original Bartok Concerto for Orchestra with the BSO is the most exciting I’ve heard. He gave a lot of premieres. He also left a great Prokofiev 5.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck,
> Do you have any impressions/stories about Koussevitzky?
> His concert recording of the original Bartok Concerto for Orchestra with the BSO is the most exciting I've heard. He gave a lot of premieres. He also left a great Prokofiev 5.


I've never been a big fan of Koussie...he was a great champion of new music, and his contribution was very substantial....as was his creation of the Tanglewood Music Festival...
As a conductor, I'm not so impressed - apparently he was not a "natural" conductor - the mechanics were difficult for him, and he had difficulty addressing problems clearly - he knew what he wanted, but had difficulty communicating it to the orchestra....
Personally, he was quite insecure, always needed praise and adulation, could get very testy and sensitive if it was not forthcoming. I heard many stories about Koussie and BSO from Willem Valkenier, former principal horn, who lived right down the road from me in retirement - really cool guy!! he loved to tell stories and had tapes of performances....he lived to be 99yo!!

Also - Koussie made some very odd appointments to the BSO over the years, so that section unity and unanimity of tone and style were not consistent - 
when he became BSO conductor, Monteux had left him a very solid French-sounding orchestra - many section principals were former Garde Republicaine members who emigrated to America - his woodwinds were all French, and played in a similar style....then he fires the clarinet player [Hamelin], and hires a Viennese player [Polatschek] from VPO/VSOO!!...in the bassoons, he had a French principal - R. Allard - then hired a 2nd bassoonist from the Vienna VolksOpera [Panenka]!! now we have musicians playing different instruments in the same section [French (Buffet) and German (Heckel) systems are very different - different instruments. With the Horns, he had a German/Dutch principal [Valkenier]- a very refined, polished style, small sound but very precise...he brings in Stagliano, from the LA movie studios, as co-principal, with a much brasher, louder approach
Unfortunately for the BSO, Munch did not seem interested in correcting these discrepancies...

the disparity in section sound and style I always found rather distracting...
At this time, keep in mind, that other orchestras - NYPO, Philadelphia, Chicago, NBC were all building very tight, balanced sections known for unanimity of tone, phrasing articulation...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have always admired the string section sound on those old Kouss recordings. Sounds like perhaps he neglected the other sections.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have always admired the string section sound on those old Kouss recordings. Sounds like perhaps he neglected the other sections.


Yes!! the strings were quite marvelous!! Koussevitsky was a virtuoso bass player...he must have known how to get that sound he wanted from the strings.


----------



## Merl

Returning to Szell (again! ) I played his Tchaikovsky 4 this afternoon. Its been a recommended performance of mine for what seems like centuries (I had it on LP) but it's never been my favourite 4th. However, It still has marvellous energy and I love the detail and clean lines of the finale, even if the constricted sound quality hasn't worn so well. Few conductors could get the LSO to play with such skill, precision, fire and unity though.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> Returning to Szell (again! ) I played his Tchaikovsky 4 this afternoon. Its been a recommended performance of mine for what seems like centuries (I had it on LP) but it's never been my favourite 4th. However, It still has marvellous energy and I love the detail and clean lines of the finale, even if the constricted sound quality hasn't worn so well. Few conductors could get the LSO to play with such skill, precision, fire and unity though.
> 
> View attachment 161806


When was this Szell/LSO Tchaik 4 recorded??


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> I've never been a big fan of Koussie...he was a great champion of new music, and his contribution was very substantial....as was his creation of the Tanglewood Music Festival...
> As a conductor, I'm not so impressed - apparently he was not a "natural" conductor - the mechanics were difficult for him, and he had difficulty addressing problems clearly - he knew what he wanted, but had difficulty communicating it to the orchestra....
> Personally, he was quite insecure, always needed praise and adulation, could get very testy and sensitive if it was not forthcoming. I heard many stories about Koussie and BSO from Willem Valkenier, former principal horn, who lived right down the road from me in retirement - really cool guy!! he loved to tell stories and had tapes of performances....he lived to be 99yo!!
> 
> Also - Koussie made some very odd appointments to the BSO over the years, so that section unity and unanimity of tone and style were not consistent -
> when he became BSO conductor, Monteux had left him a very solid French-sounding orchestra - many section principals were former Garde Republicaine members who emigrated to America - his woodwinds were all French, and played in a similar style....then he fires the clarinet player [Hamelin], and hires a Viennese player [Polatschek] from VPO/VSOO!!...in the bassoons, he had a French principal - R. Allard - then hired a 2nd bassoonist from the Vienna VolksOpera [Panenka]!! now we have musicians playing different instruments in the same section [French (Buffet) and German (Heckel) systems are very different - different instruments. With the Horns, he had a German/Dutch principal [Valkenier]- a very refined, polished style, small sound but very precise...he brings in Stagliano, from the LA movie studios, as co-principal, with a much brasher, louder approach
> Unfortunately for the BSO, Munch did not seem interested in correcting these discrepancies...
> 
> the disparity in section sound and style I always found rather distracting...
> At this time, keep in mind, that other orchestras - NYPO, Philadelphia, Chicago, NBC were all building very tight, balanced sections known for unanimity of tone, phrasing articulation...


And yet, they ultimately got their act back together -- Doriot Anthony Dwyer, who succeeded Georges Laurent, Ralph Gomberg, Sherman Walt, Harold Wright, Joseph Silverstein, Jules Eskin -- all on those fabulous Boston Symphony Chamber Players records.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> And yet, they ultimately got their act back together -- Doriot Anthony Dwyer, who succeeded Georges Laurent, Ralph Gomberg, Sherman Walt, Harold Wright, Joseph Silverstein, Jules Eskin -- all on those fabulous Boston Symphony Chamber Players records.


Well, sort of, first they had to get by Holmes and Cioffi [oboe, clar]...Walt came from Chicago, where Kubelik had fired him...
Gomberg and Wright were very good players, eventually the section took shape...but then Ozawa screwed things up with his chronic inability to commit himself and make or confirm appointments [Oboe, flute, trumpet].with Levine and Nelsons, 
the BSO section is in pretty good shape now...the brass was a mess for years and years....a lot better now.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have always admired the string section sound on those old Kouss recordings. Sounds like perhaps he neglected the other sections.


Valkenier related a funny story to us, along with a tape of the performance in question - it shows the extraordinary ability of a great string section to adapt - 
They were performing Tchaik Sym #5 - mvt II has the lengthy horn solo, which can be very taxing....which enters after the introductory chords in the strings....
Koussie, like many conductors of that era, was quite a martinet...and would at times deliberately take a extra slow/fast tempo in performance....on this occasion - he had the strings open the movement at a glacially slow tempo - funereal, it is reaaaallly slow!! agonizing...The poor horn player [Valkenier] is going to expire halfway thru the passage!! So, on his entrance, Valkenier completely ignored Koussie, and upped the tempo to a more normal, playable pace....it's amazing - the strings immediately went with his tempo increase, I'd say within a half of a beat!! and they proceeded from there...Koussie followed along with the flow....
Valkenier thought Koussie was pissed at him for something that had happened before the concert, and was out to "bust his chops" - maybe, maybe not?? but it was certainly interesting to hear the tape!!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Knorf said:


> And...I can't believe I let myself get sucked into another Furtwängler debate. Ugh.


What's so hard to believe about it? It's the same phenomenon as in the case of Roggy; you intentionally let yourself cause you _enjoy it._ Almost everyone loves some sort of iconoclasm deep down.


hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, you know it and you enjoy it; gets you more chances to call him 'fartwangler'.


----------



## hammeredklavier

From John Culshaw, Szell's English Decca producer:
"Szell had a notorious tongue and a reputation for eating anyone alive who crossed his path. With very few exceptions, orchestral musicians loathed him, although no musician worthy of the name could fault him artistically. On the podium he was incapable of generating warmth. When he died almost all the obituaries could not resist the comment that he did not suffer fools gladly, but it would be nearer the truth to say that he did not suffer fools at all".
https://slippedisc.com/2018/08/was-georg-szell-as-horrid-as-described/


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> When was this Szell/LSO Tchaik 4 recorded??


You know, Heck, I never did know when the Szell Tchaikovsly 4 was recorded so I looked it up. Apparently it was recorded on the 11th & 13th September 1962 at Walthamstow Assembly Hall, London. I always thought it was just before he died in '70 but apparently its much earlier than that (it does sound more early 60s than late 60s tbh). Apparently the LSO liked playing for Szell a lot. There are quite a few references to his guest conductor performances in London. If I recall it's even mentioned in the Karajan books (Karajan had a lot of time for Szell, found him a "deeply honourable man" and wouldn't hear a bad word about him). If you haven't heard that Tchaikovsky you, Heck, you should. It's a fine performance. Right up your street.


----------



## John Zito

hammeredklavier said:


> From John Culshaw, Szell's English Decca producer:
> "Szell had a notorious tongue and a reputation for eating anyone alive who crossed his path. With very few exceptions, orchestral musicians loathed him, although no musician worthy of the name could fault him artistically. On the podium he was incapable of generating warmth. When he died almost all the obituaries could not resist the comment that he did not suffer fools gladly, but it would be nearer the truth to say that he did not suffer fools at all".
> https://slippedisc.com/2018/08/was-georg-szell-as-horrid-as-described/


Columbia wanted Szell to record Strauss's _Burleske_ with André Previn, but the two had never met before, so a meeting was arranged while Szell was in LA:



The Cleveland Orchestra Story by Donald Rosenberg said:


> Previn arrived at Szell's room at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel and engaged in small talk. Then Szell said, "Well, let's go through the piece." One problem: the room had no piano. Szell proceeded to tell Previn to play the piece on a table. "Well, I was still young and inexperienced, I suppose, and in awe of the great conductor, so I didn't walk out," recalled Previn. "I sat down and started whacking away at this table." Soon Szell stopped him: "No, no, no. It needs to be faster." He wasn't kidding. Nor, perhaps, was Previn: "Well, maestro, the reason it sounds so slow is that I'm simply not used to this table. My dining room table at home has much better action." With that, Szell dismissed him -- "I don't consider that funny, young man. You may go." -- and the recording was off.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> You know, Heck, I never did know when the Szell Tchaikovsly 4 was recorded so I looked it up. Apparently it was recorded on the 11th & 13th September 1962 at Walthamstow Assembly Hall, London. I always thought it was just before he died in '70 but apparently its much earlier than that (it does sound more early 60s than late 60s tbh). Apparently the LSO liked playing for Szell a lot. There are quite a few references to his guest conductor performances in London. If I recall it's even mentioned in the Karajan books (Karajan had a lot of time for Szell, found him a "deeply honourable man" and wouldn't hear a bad word about him). If you haven't heard that Tchaikovsky you, Heck, you should. It's a fine performance. Right up your street.


Yeah, that's an exciting recording. I've owned it for decades.

I was introducing someone to Brahms, in particular the lovely 3rd symphony Allegretto movement, and I realized it makes an interesting comparison.

With Furtwangler, I feel as if I am hearing with every note his obvious love and affection. Now, I revere this recording, but I can understand someone feeling that perhaps he is overstating the case, making too much of it. With some more epic works, the Beethoven 9th for example, or Wagner, it is almost impossible to overstate things. But with this movement perhaps Furtwangler's treatment takes away from the beautiful simplicity of the writing.






With Szell, we hear the clear contrast. This the other extreme - a "just the facts" interpretation. It sounds cold and clinical to me, as if Szell doesn't even like the piece.






I think Abbado/BPO strikes an ideal middle ground. Played with affectionate warmth, but not overemphasizing things. This is my prime recommendation for this work.


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> You know, Heck, I never did know when the Szell Tchaikovsly 4 was recorded so I looked it up. Apparently it was recorded on the 11th & 13th September 1962 at Walthamstow Assembly Hall, London. I always thought it was just before he died in '70 but apparently its much earlier than that (it does sound more early 60s than late 60s tbh). Apparently the LSO liked playing for Szell a lot. There are quite a few references to his guest conductor performances in London. If I recall it's even mentioned in the Karajan books (Karajan had a lot of time for Szell, found him a "deeply honourable man" and wouldn't hear a bad word about him). If you haven't heard that Tchaikovsky you, Heck, you should. It's a fine performance. Right up your street.


The LSO came to the fore in the early 60s, as Monteux took over the helm...great orchestra!! This was the LSO that made such great recordings under Kertesz, Dorati, Previn, Abbado, Solti, Monteux, etc...


----------



## Heck148

John Zito said:


> Columbia wanted Szell to record Strauss's _Burleske_ with André Previn, but the two had never met before, so a meeting was arranged while Szell was in LA:


Szell was a real prick, no doubt.. a control freak, not a nice person...


----------



## Knorf

I agree that Abbado/Berlin for Brahms offers an attractive "middle road" between Furtwängler and Szell, but, Brahmsianhorn, I feel you demonize Szell; to my ears your criticisms are very far from fair, even though Szell is not my own favorite for Brahms (and yet even so I would not want to do without having heard Szell's Brahms, and I get why people like it...)


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> The LSO came to the fore in the early 60s, as Monteux took over the helm...great orchestra!! This was the LSO that made such great recordings under Kertesz, Dorati, Previn, Abbado, Solti, Monteux, etc...


At one point, many principal players resigned over a dispute on work rules. So in came Neville Marriner, Barry Tuckwell and James.Galway. They had a pretty strong pool of players to draw from in London in the 60s.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Yeah, that's an exciting recording. I've owned it for decades.
> 
> I was introducing someone to Brahms, in particular the lovely 3rd symphony Allegretto movement, and I realized it makes an interesting comparison.
> 
> With Furtwangler, I feel as if I am hearing with every note his obvious love and affection. Now, I revere this recording, but I can understand someone feeling that perhaps he is overstating the case, making too much of it. With some more epic works, the Beethoven 9th for example, or Wagner, it is almost impossible to overstate things. But with this movement perhaps Furtwangler's treatment takes away from the beautiful simplicity of the writing.
> 
> With Szell, we hear the clear contrast. This the other extreme - a "just the facts" interpretation. It sounds cold and clinical to me, as if Szell doesn't even like the piece.
> 
> I think Abbado/BPO strikes an ideal middle ground. Played with affectionate warmth, but not overemphasizing things. This is my prime recommendation for this work.


I'll play Hurwitz here. For this movement, my order of preference:

#1 Szell
#2 Furtwangler
#3 Abbado

I just don't like Abbado in Brahms, it sounds too corny for me. Szell's phrasing is at the same time the most engaging and subtle for me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll play Hurwitz here. For this movement, my order of preference:
> 
> #1 Szell
> #2 Furtwangler
> #3 Abbado
> 
> I just don't like Abbado in Brahms, it sounds too corny for me. Szell's phrasing is at the same time the most engaging and subtle for me.


Huh, you think Abbado is even more sentimental than Furtwängler here?

Abbado certainly is more "gooey" than most Brahms conductors, but his cycle is excellent - probably the best thing he did with the BPO - and the 3rd is the pick of the litter. (And actually, I believe Hurwitz is on record as agreeing with this)

I don't hate Szell. I was just seconding the recommendation of the above referenced Tchai 4.

His R. Strauss is excellent, maybe the uniformly best in the catalogue.

I just find his symphony recordings of the German masters - Beethoven, Brahms, Mahler - to be lacking in depth and warmth. They sound kind of robotic to me. Too much emphasis on mere accuracy.

.


----------



## fluteman

Nasty though he may have been to his players, Szell left us some great records, such as this one. Even Charles Munch and the BSO, my usual first choice in the French impressionist repertoire, didn't achieve this silken sound.


----------



## MarkW

Question for Heck, Knorf, or any other experienced orchestral musician:

My first Haffner Symphony was a Szell/Cleveland LP that I liked (and still revere) because of the crystalline nature of some of the string phrases in the first movement. I have already expressed my preference for Szell's Mahler Fourth, in part because of the precision of the wind playing.

So my question: Are these things any first rate orchestral musician can accomplish with enough whipping? Or does it require finding the right people with the right technique and temperament to respond to the blandishments?


----------



## Heck148

MarkW said:


> Question for Heck, Knorf, or any other experienced orchestral musician:
> ....So my question: Are these things any first rate orchestral musician can accomplish with enough whipping? Or does it require finding the right people with the right technique and temperament to respond to the blandishments?


That's an excellent question. Great conductors have in mind, in their ear, a sound that they want to produce from their orchestras...in a past era conductors would seek out specific musicians they knew, or knew of audition them personally, and get them into their ensembles...

so, not every musician will play with a tone or style that will please every conductor....every musician is going to have their own personal sound and approach...the trick is to have your sections comprised of players who all play in a similar style, tone, articulation....

The greatest orchestras all have their "training grounds" for prospective members...students who are studying with incumbent orchestra members, feeder orchestras...all perpetuating the sound of that orchestra.

Anomalies, inconsistencies within or between sections stick out like an auditory sore thumb...tone and balance problems are readily apparent...if a new musician doesn't "fit" into the orchestra for tone and balance, they probably won't be granted tenure...
Good question, big topic...I'm sure others will chime in with more insights...


----------



## MarkW

Heck148 said:


> That's an excellent question. Great conductors have in mind, in their ear, a sound that they want to produce from their orchestras...in a past era conductors would seek out specific musicians they knew, or knew of audition them personally, and get them into their ensembles...
> 
> so, not every musician will play with a tone or style that will please every conductor....every musician is going to have their own personal sound and approach...the trick is to have your sections comprised of players who all play in a similar style, tone, articulation....
> 
> The greatest orchestras all have their "training grounds" for prospective members...students who are studying with incumbent orchestra members, feeder orchestras...all perpetuating the sound of that orchestra.
> 
> Anomalies, inconsistencies within or between sections stick out like an auditory sore thumb...tone and balance problems are readily apparent...if a new musician doesn't "fit" into the orchestra for tone and balance, they probably won't be granted tenure...
> Good question, big topic...I'm sure others will chime in with more insights...


Thank you! .


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> That's an excellent question. Great conductors have in mind, in their ear, a sound that they want to produce from their orchestras...in a past era conductors would seek out specific musicians they knew, or knew of audition them personally, and get them into their ensembles...
> 
> so, not every musician will play with a tone or style that will please every conductor....every musician is going to have their own personal sound and approach...the trick is to have your sections comprised of players who all play in a similar style, tone, articulation....
> 
> The greatest orchestras all have their "training grounds" for prospective members...students who are studying with incumbent orchestra members, feeder orchestras...all perpetuating the sound of that orchestra.
> 
> Anomalies, inconsistencies within or between sections stick out like an auditory sore thumb...tone and balance problems are readily apparent...if a new musician doesn't "fit" into the orchestra for tone and balance, they probably won't be granted tenure...
> Good question, big topic...I'm sure others will chime in with more insights...


Thanks, Heck. All I can add from my outside viewpoint (though friends and relatives are on the inside) is that the tradition you are talking about is fading in our modern world, though perhaps continuing on in the mighty institutions of the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics. The top orchestral musicians come from all over the world and increasingly travel all over the world to land in the top orchestral chairs after competing in supposedly 'blind' auditions against a huge number of candidates from everywhere (though the French continue with their tradition of hiring their own, what French orchestra would you consider one of the best in the world today?).

And imo this does indeed result in problems. The New York Philharmonic recently hired a principal oboist from China (though he played in another American orchestra before joining the NYP). He was a spectacular player, but was fired for misconduct (sexual harassment, I believe, though the details were not publicized). That incident, which of course one hopes was isolated and not the norm, does illustrate how principal players are hired for their virtuoso playing but often without a whole lot of consideration for personalities and how well they will interact with colleagues.

Today's economic realities have also damaged the traditional family concept of the symphony orchestra. Look at the debacle in Minnesota. Ultimately the orchestra was saved, but not before losing some if its best players permanently. In sum, though the technical proficiency of the best players has likely never been higher, something has been lost from the proud symphony orchestra tradition.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Thanks, Heck. All I can add from my outside viewpoint (though friends and relatives are on the inside) is that the tradition you are talking about is fading in our modern world, though perhaps continuing on in the mighty institutions of the Vienna and Berlin Philharmonics. The top orchestral musicians come from all over the world and increasingly travel all over the world to land in the top orchestral chairs after competing in supposedly 'blind' auditions against a huge number of candidates from everywhere...


The very top orchestras do maintain their own sounds and styles...thru teacher-student relationships, and feeder orchestra programs coached by orchestra musicians[ie - Chicago Civic Orchestra]

I agree about the "homogenization" of orchestral sound - mainly in the very excellent 2nd or 3rd tier orchestras....the first round of blind auditions tends to favor technical accuracy, generally attractive tone, "don't do anything wrong", "color inside the lines", etc....this promotes a sort of "one size fits all" approach by audition takers - develop a generic "Bb" style that won't antagonize or offend anyone....Is it really possible to distinguish the AtlantaSO from, say St LouisSO from a recording??
Thing is - a musician eliminated in the first round by audition committee might have, in the past, been exactly the one a conductor would have chosen to fill a vacancy...but c'est la vie....



> Today's economic realities have also damaged the traditional family concept of the symphony orchestra. Look at the debacle in Minnesota. Ultimately the orchestra was saved, but not before losing some if its best players permanently......


What exactly, happened in Minnesota?? I'm not up to speed on that....


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> What exactly, happened in Minnesota?? I'm not up to speed on that....


There was a 15-month lockout there before the orchestra accepted a major cut in benefits and pay in January 2014.

http://https://www.startribune.com/jan-15-minnesota-orchestra-deal-ends-15-month-lockout/240153421/

I must respectfully disagree with you about the Chicago Symphony and other major American orchestras. If you look at their current roster, it is a very nationwide and international bunch. Principal flutist Stefan Hoskuldsson was trained in his native Iceland and was principal flutist at the Met for many years, a nice guy and fine player. Concertmaster Robert Chen is a Juilliard alum from Taiwan. Principal violist Li-Kuo Chang is from China and studied at Eastman. Other players come from all over the US and the world and many are Juilliard, Eastman or Curtis alums, including the current principal bassoonist Keith Buncke, a Curtis alum from Portland, Oregon. A member of the horn section, Daniel Gingrich, is a Chicago area native and Civic Orchestra alum who has been with the orchestra since 1975. I remember him from my days in Chicago in the early 80s. But I'm not sure how many more there are these days.

The leading 'training' orchestra in the US today no doubt is the New World Symphony in Florida, where young players can remain a maximum of four seasons before they must seek employment elsewhere. You can find its alumni in major (and minor) orchestras throughout the US, including the Chicago Symphony.

I have a cousin who was a section leader in the Chicago Youth Symphony and played in the Civic Orchestra as well. Those are good ensembles, but can't be characterized as Chicago Symphony training ensembles.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> There was a 15-month lockout there before the orchestra accepted a major cut in benefits and pay in January 2014.
> 
> http://https://www.startribune.com/jan-15-minnesota-orchestra-deal-ends-15-month-lockout/240153421/
> 
> I must respectfully disagree with you about the Chicago Symphony and other major American orchestras. If you look at their current roster, it is a very nationwide and international bunch. Principal flutist Stefan Hoskuldsson was trained in his native Iceland and was principal flutist at the Met for many years, a nice guy and fine player. Concertmaster Robert Chen is a Juilliard alum from Taiwan. Principal violist Li-Kuo Chang is from China and studied at Eastman. Other players come from all over the US and the world and many are Juilliard, Eastman or Curtis alums, including the current principal bassoonist Keith Buncke, a Curtis alum from Portland, Oregon. A member of the horn section, Daniel Gingrich, is a Chicago area native and Civic Orchestra alum who has been with the orchestra since 1975. I remember him from my days in Chicago in the early 80s. But I'm not sure how many more there are these days.
> 
> The leading 'training' orchestra in the US today no doubt is the New World Symphony in Florida, where young players can remain a maximum of four seasons before they must seek employment elsewhere. You can find its alumni in major (and minor) orchestras throughout the US, including the Chicago Symphony.
> 
> I have a cousin who was a section leader in the Chicago Youth Symphony and played in the Civic Orchestra as well. Those are good ensembles, but can't be characterized as Chicago Symphony training ensembles.


There are certainly students of CSO members or former members in the orchestra, esp in the brass. yes, they have drawn on musicians from all over, but the sound has been preserved to a very high degree. One has only to look at how long, and how many candidates have been tried out for principal orchestra positions before a permanent appointment was made - trumpet, horn, oboe, bassoon, flute - the associate principals have covered the first chair positions for years in some cases - Ridenour, Gingrich, Buchman. They know what they want....you must play that style....
I played gigs with Bll Buchman when he was a student at Brown University...same with Sue [Drake] Gaunt, horn - I used to hire her regularly to play in one of my orchestras....she went to New World Symphony, then onto professional positions, ending up in CSO.

Keep in mind, also - that orchestras like ViennaPO, BerlinPO have international members as well...one has only to look at the rosters...for a time, the principal trombone in VPO was Ian Bousfield, who had gone there from the LondonSO!! principal bassoonist Sophie Dervaux is French!! VPO tends to "stay at home" but not entirely. 
The BPO is considerably more cosmopolitan - there are French, Australian, Japanese, English principals in strings and woodwinds. they learn to play with that tone and style of performance.
The RCBO is probably most cosmopolitan of the three - here the Asiatics have joined in the strings, the winds have Russians, Spanish, Italians, Uruguayan, English members, several as principals...
again, the orchestras are going to maintain their style and sound as much as possible and they will draw on the best talent they can find....


----------



## FrankinUsa

I would like to return to George Szell and also touch upon the issue of homogeneity of orchestra. I am going to make two statements. Your opinions please. 

Obvious some like Szell,some do not. The statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950’ s until his death in 1970. Many(a large major) have control to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is known as “reference recordings.”
Would you agree to disagree to that statement?

The Cleveland Orchestra still is influenced by Szell. 50 years after his death. Three music directors;Lorin Maazel,Christopher Von Dohnanyi,Franz Welser Most. Your thoughts please


----------



## fluteman

FrankinUsa said:


> I would like to return to George Szell and also touch upon the issue of homogeneity of orchestra. I am going to make two statements. Your opinions please.
> 
> Obvious some like Szell,some do not. The statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950' s until his death in 1970. Many(a large major) have control to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is known as "reference recordings."
> Would you agree to disagree to that statement?
> 
> The Cleveland Orchestra still is influenced by Szell. 50 years after his death. Three music directors;Lorin Maazel,Christopher Von Dohnanyi,Franz Welser Most. Your thoughts please


Just my very humble opinion, but the Cleveland Orchestra today is nothing like what it was under Szell. The discipline and precision he was able to attain at his best is no longer there, even if today's players are as good or better. I don't think that's anything to moan and groan about, though. Things change.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Just my very humble opinion, but the Cleveland Orchestra today is nothing like what it was under Szell. The discipline and precision he was able to attain at his best is no longer there, even if today's players are as good or better. I don't think that's anything to moan and groan about, though. Things change.


Agreed...I don't know if it was Maazel or Dohnanyi, or both, but the sound of the orchestra really changed...I heard them in Boston Symphony Hall, performing Bruckner 7 under Dohnanyi early 80s [??]....The woodwinds sounded good, but lacked that tight ensemble; I was really disappointed, esp in the brass ensemble sound....under Szell - you had focus, clarity, brilliance - on the big chord sonorities, you could hear the individual pitches and the movement of voices within those chords...under Dohnanyi, we heard a rather unfocused, diffuse sort of quality, you couldn't hear the changes...ie - at the conclusion of mvt I, which has all the E major chords, the voices rising up the chord degrees - you heard lots of E major, but the changes were indistinguishable...it sounded like some Middle European or German group..it was sonically blurry, it had lost that clarity. 
Szell would never have accepted that....


----------



## Heck148

An interesting biographical note about Szell - early on in his musical endeavors, he took up the horn.....he loved the horn and really wanted to _ex-Szell_ [sorry, couldn't resist :devil::lol:] on it as his personal instrument....But, apparently, he just lacked the "chops"....try as he might, he simply could not master the tricky instrument.
However, his love, interest, [obsession??], with it persisted throughout his life....he loved the horn, and always wanted lots of loud horns in his interpretations of various works....if you listen to much Szell, you'll hear it.... 
I heard Szell/Cleveland perform a Beethoven 7th once, he used 6 horns!! yeh, they were loud!! I think he used 5 or 6 for Eroica, as well...
Myron [Mike] Bloom, the excellent Cleveland principal horn under Szell relates how Szell was always asking him questions, going over matters related to the horn section - quite detailed - <<How would he play that passage?? F or Bb horn?? which parts would the assistant cover?? How do we get this or that effect?? and so forth>>....Bloom didn't mind, but surmised that Szell never could let go of the challenge of the horn, one of the few things at which he had failed....

A funny Szell story involving horns - 
rehearsing a Beethoven Sym [had to be #9 - it uses 4 horns] - the scherzo - rocking along - 3/4 in 1 - Szell stops abruptly - agitated - glares back at the horn section - <<Third horn [who is counting rests] - What are you doing??!! What's going on back there??>>
3rd Horn player - [mystified, bewildered] <<er....I'm counting rests, I have 48 measures rest, I'm counting, then I'll make my entrance>>
Szell - <<What?? 48 measures rest?? ....let's see [looks in score] - well, OK, then - *but don't look so STUPID!!*]

Might have been the same 3rd horn musician in a not very funny story - the incumbent 3rd horn heard thru the musicians' grapevine that a horn player from another orchestra was going to become 3rd horn with Cleveland....he'd heard nothing from Szell....he went to ask the Maestro what was up - Szell assured him, nothing's up, don't worry, it's all fine....
About 2 weeks later, the horn player got his pink slip, and was out!! Szell was not a nice person....


----------



## FrankinUsa

Thank you to those who gave their thoughts to my last post about Szell. I asked two questions and the responses seemed to be more geared towards the second question. I would like to repost my first question and await any opinions from the TC community. 

Obviously,some like Szell,some do not. My statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950’’s until his death in 1970. Many(a large majority) have come to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is know as “reference recordings. “

Thank you


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It depends who you ask. People who like clarity and precision - Hurwitz for example - will recommend Szell for everything. Hurwitz said recently that Szell is the "Mozart guy," i.e. the reference for Mozart's last six symphonies. Nobody else would say the same, but they would say he is among the best alongside Walter, Klemperer, Bernstein, Mackerras, etc. I find Szell to be a bit stiff in Mozart. His Haffner is excellent, perfect for his energetic exhuberance.

There is broad consensus that Szell's Eroica is among the best alongside Klemperer, Kleiber, Toscanini, and Furtwangler. Not so much the other symphonies, though some including Hurwitz champion his live 5th on Orfeo. His Brahms has many admirers, but again I think it is stiff next to Abbado, Klemperer, Jochum, Karajan, and Walter.

Most admired are his Dvorak final three symphonies. I'll admit that I do not know these particular recordings very well. I do like his celebrated Slavonic Dances, even if they are not as idiomatic as Talich. But the sound quality is fantastic.

I am an especially big admirer of his R. Strauss - Tod und Verklarung, Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, Don Quixote with Fournier. These I think can confidently be recommended as reference versions. Orchestral tone poems with their emphasis on brilliance and color work well with Szell.

He didn't record much Bruckner and sounded stiff in the one I heard (I think the 8th). His Mahler 4th is considered by many to be THE version, as well as his 6th to a lesser extent. But for me in Mahler of all composers, Szell's cool approach doesn't work so well. I prefer the warmth and passion of Barbirolli and Bernstein.

.


----------



## Merl

I've just listened to Szell's cold, mechanical, stiff, clinical, robotic, simplistic, two-dimensional (add other negatives here) recording of Sibelius 2 with the Concertgebouw. It was good to recall how brilliantly Szell gets the perfect forward momentum (oh, I mean how relentlessly driven, flat, rushed, excessive, cool and detached he is). Next up will be his harsh, uncompromising, micromanaged, emotionless, automated, impersonal, cursory, persistent, steely, dogged, remote, unfeeling, icy, stoic, stoney, heartless, hollow and phlegmatic Eroica. Then I'm off to beat a bag of kittens with a baseball bat. :devil:


----------



## FrankinUsa

Merl said:


> I've just listened to Szell's cold, mechanical, stiff, clinical, robotic, simplistic, two-dimensional (add other negatives here) recording of Sibelius 2 with the Concertgebouw. It was good to recall how brilliantly Szell gets the perfect forward momentum (oh, I mean how relentlessly driven, flat, rushed, excessive, cool and detached he is). Next up will be his harsh, uncompromising, micromanaged, emotionless, automated, impersonal, cursory, persistent, steely, dogged, remote, unfeeling, icy, stoic, stoney, heartless, hollow and phlegmatic Eroica. Then I'm off to beat a bag of kittens with a baseball bat. :devil:


Interesting comment.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I find it ironic that we are discussing some much about Szell versus post 1970(Szell’s death) conductors. I think only Furtwangler gets more attention


----------



## Merl

FrankinUsa said:


> I find it ironic that we are discussing some much about Szell versus post 1970(Szell's death) conductors. I think only Furtwangler gets more attention


Please, Frank, don't mention the F word.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Merl said:


> Please, Frank, don't mention the F word.


LOL
Upon consideration,it is a tactical mistake to mention "F".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> LOL
> Upon consideration,it is a tactical mistake to mention "F".


"_What's most striking is Furtwangler's willingness to sacrifice precision for the sake of passion_." - New Yorker






Considering your contention that Szell is comparable to Furtwangler in the attention he garners today, I decided to compare their complete box sets on Amazon and the number of reviews each has received.

*Furtwangler:*

The Legacy - 107
Complete Recordings On Deutsche Grammophon and Decca - 93
Complete RIAS Recordings - 40
The Legend - Studio Recordings - 36
The Great EMI Recordings - 31

*Szell:*

The Complete Columbia Album Collection - 61
The Warner Recordings - 50
Decca & Philips Recordings - 11

It seems perhaps that George does not "Szell" as well as Furtwangler. Kind of surprising when you consider that he recorded much more repertoire and with infinitely better sound quality.

.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Brahmsianhorn said:


> "_What's most striking is Furtwangler's willingness to sacrifice precision for the sake of passion_." - New Yorker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering your contention that Szell is comparable to Furtwangler in the attention he garners today, I decided to compare their complete box sets on Amazon and the number of reviews each has received.
> 
> *Furtwangler:*
> 
> The Legacy - 107
> Complete Recordings On Deutsche Grammophon and Decca - 93
> Complete RIAS Recordings - 40
> The Legend - Studio Recordings - 36
> The Great EMI Recordings - 31
> 
> *Szell:*
> 
> The Complete Columbia Album Collection - 61
> The Warner Recordings - 50
> Decca & Philips Recordings - 11
> 
> It seems perhaps that George does not "Szell" as well as Furtwangler. Kind of surprising when you consider that he recorded much more repertoire and with infinitely better sound quality.
> 
> .


You did not count all the individual CDs that were released since Compact Disc was introduced. So I feel your analysis is somewhat flawed. I will not count the individual CDs released between Furtwangler and Szell.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Top 10 Szell Recordings, overemphasis on precision and all:

(Of course, his greatest legacy is his orchestral accompaniment for some of the greatest solo/orchestral recordings of all time, but I'm excluding those from this list. Maybe a separate list?)

1. 









2.










3.









4.










5.


----------



## Merl

...................

Oh hang on..we're back on topic. Wonders will never cease!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

6.









7.









8.









9.









10.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> View attachment 161960
> 
> 
> ...................
> 
> Oh hang on..we're back on topic. Wonders will never cease!


Comparing/contrasting the subject conductor with other conductors is not hijacking


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> Szell was a real prick, no doubt.. a control freak, not a nice person...


So -- Who was the bigger *******? Szell or Reiner? Or maybe Rodzinski, who took a loaded gun to rehearsals? I vote for Szell. For the others, there are at least one or two stories I've read that don't put them in such a bad light. I saw a televised interview he gave as part of a documentary. There, he made it clear there that he saw the orchestra as existing solely for the benefit of the board of directors and that he had no responsibility to anyone else, least of all to the hired hands playing the music.

Contrast that to Osmo Vanska, who (temporarily) resigned in response to his players being locked out by management.


----------



## fbjim

What's unfortunate is when I see people romanticizing this sort of behavior, or saying what a shame it is that modern society frowns on it. Szell made some fabulous recordings, but so did Pierre Monetux, a man beloved by his players.


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Top 10 Szell Recordings, overemphasis on precision and all:


What works that he didn't record do you wish that he had? Knowing what you know about your preferences and his approach, what additional Szell/Cleveland recordings would you will into existence with optimism that you'd find them really enjoyable/interesting?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

John Zito said:


> What works that he didn't record do you wish that he had? Knowing what you know about your preferences and his approach, what additional Szell/Cleveland recordings would you will into existence with optimism that you'd find them really enjoyable/interesting?


You're asking the wrong person. Szell's Richard Strauss recordings are the only ones I find to be essential, aside from his concerto recordings.

I would think that he would have done a good Brahms Hungarian Dances. He was good at snappy stuff.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> So -- Who was the bigger *******? Szell or Reiner? Or maybe Rodzinski, who took a loaded gun to rehearsals? I vote for Szell.....


Close competition, for sure, they were all pretty miserable b**t**ds....Rodzinski had a volcanic temper, was given to summary firings, but so was Reiner...who was a domineering pr*ck...Szell was a micromanaging martinet....Stokowski and Mravinsky are way up on the podium tyrant list as well...


----------



## FrankinUsa

FrankinUsa said:


> Thank you to those who gave their thoughts to my last post about Szell. I asked two questions and the responses seemed to be more geared towards the second question. I would like to repost my first question and await any opinions from the TC community.
> 
> Obviously,some like Szell,some do not. My statement is;Most of the Szell recordings are between the late 1950''s until his death in 1970. Many(a large majority) have come to be regarded as contenders to be amongst what is know as "reference recordings. "
> 
> Thank you


I'm still awaiting some thoughts on this statement that I have put forth. 
What role does Szell's discography have in classical recordings?


----------



## FrankinUsa

Heck148 said:


> Close competition, for sure, they were all pretty miserable b**t**ds....Rodzinski had a volcanic temper, was given to summary firings, but so was Reiner...who was a domineering pr*ck...Szell was a micromanaging martinet....Stokowski and Mravinsky are way up on the podium tyrant list as well...


I read a comment somewhere. I'm sorry but I can't find the exact source but the statement was memorable. There was someone who
Worked with Reiner. The adjective was "sadistic." That is pretty low.

But I honestly feel discussing personalities of conductors of a past age are taking our eyes off the target.

The target is the artistry that is left behind in the recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm still awaiting some thoughts on this statement that I have put forth.
> What role does Szell's discography have in classical recordings?


What, I get no credit for my responses to that question? Sheeesh. Tough crowd.


----------



## Heck148

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm still awaiting some thoughts on this statement that I have put forth.
> What role does Szell's discography have in classical recordings?


Not sure what answer you're looking for....for me, Szell's discography is of very large importance....He conducted a large repertoire very well....he was a "literalist" rather than a "Romantic"...with Cleveland, he built a really superb orchestra, definitely one of the "best ever"....I enjoy many of his recordings, tho I generally prefer Reiner and Toscanini, who had the same approach, but are usually more flexible and elastic in their phrasing, while still maintaining great precision....
Szell can really let loose, tho, and when he does it's wonderful - he had the instrument with his Clevelanders, these guys could really play...Walton Sym #2!! 
His Beethoven symphonies are excellent, #7 is terrific, and Leonore #3 top of the heap...I enjoy his Haydn and Mozart also, very fine....tho I maybe prefer Walter and Reiner by a very slight margin....we're talking top-notch stuff here....
So, for me, Szell occupies a pretty prominent place in my collection, and I listen to his efforts often...
great musician, great conductor, real a*sh*le of a person....but he's not alone in that category...


----------



## FrankinUsa

Heck148 said:


> Not sure what answer you're looking for....for me, Szell's discography is of very large importance....He conducted a large repertoire very well....he was a "literalist" rather than a "Romantic"...with Cleveland, he built a really superb orchestra, definitely one of the "best ever"....I enjoy many of his recordings, tho I generally prefer Reiner and Toscanini, who had the same approach, but are usually more flexible and elastic in their phrasing, while still maintaining great precision....
> Szell can really let loose, tho, and when he does it's wonderful - he had the instrument with his Clevelanders, these guys could really play...
> His Beethoven symphonies are excellent, #7 is terrific, and Leonore #3 top of the heap...I enjoy his Haydn and Mozart also, very fine....tho I maybe prefer walter and Reiner by a very slight margin....we're talking top-notch stuff here....
> So, for me, Szell occupies a pretty prominent place in my collection, and I listen to his efforts often...
> great musician, great conductor, real a*sh*le of a person....but he's not alone in that category...


You're answer was perfect


----------



## Heck148

FrankinUsa said:


> There was someone who Worked with Reiner. The adjective was "sadistic." That is pretty low.


Yes, that adjective fits - he was sadistic - he wouldn't just fire a musician, first he'd grind him down to a pulp, then fire him...if one showed weakness, it was all over....



> But I honestly feel discussing personalities of conductors of a past age are taking our eyes off the target.
> 
> The target is the artistry that is left behind in the recordings.


You are right...many of these past podium giants were pretty nasty characters - but they produced wonderful results.....they knew exactly what they were doing, knew what they wanted and expected to hear. They knew how to identify and fix problems, and exhibited extraordinary control over their orchestras.


----------



## RogerWaters

FrankinUsa said:


> I'm still awaiting some thoughts on this statement that I have put forth.
> What role does Szell's discography have in classical recordings?


Obviously this doesn't correct for number of recordings made nor the playlists spotify creates that would direct many 'casual' listeners who want some 'classical music', but for what it's worth here is the popularity of some conductors, including Szell, for Spotify listeners. Monthly listens:

Karajan: 2,617,000
Bernstein: 1,582,000
Abaddo: 1,370,000
Ormandy: 624,000
Davis: 523,000
Bohm: 498,000
Barbirolli: 271,000
Szell: 220,000 
Haitink: 177,000
Reiner: 97,000
Wand: 83,000
Furtwangler: 47,000
Celibidache: 33,000
Klemperer: 32,000
Walter: 29,123
Toascanini: 9,600


----------



## fbjim

Surprised Dorati isn't there specifically for that 1812 recording that sold sixty bazillion copies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> ...Walton Sym #2!!


Oh yes! Forgot that one. Definitely a reference recording of a rarely done work.


----------



## fluteman

FrankinUsa said:


> You're answer was perfect


And further to Heck's comment about Szell building a superb orchestra -- The superb 1969 Stravinsky le Sacre du printemps with Pierre Boulez conducting imo is superb in large part because Szell built such a superb orchestra. For me, that Sacre still tops the list, despite subsequent fine versions by Colin Davis and the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra, Michael Tilson-Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony, and a number of others.

Ironically, with Szell himself conducting, though the orchestra produced many fine recordings, especially of Mozart and Beethoven, most of them are not indispensable for me. I don't care for his Schumann symphonies, though they are highly praised by many. I prefer Reiner and the CSO for Richard Strauss, and a number of others for Dvorak, good though his versions are. I mentioned his wonderful La Mer and Daphnis above, but Munch is my overall favorite Debussy and Ravel conductor, along with Ansermet and Paray.

But a significant exception to that are his recordings of the late Mozart piano concertos with the great Robert Casadesus. Right up there with the very best ever put on record, standing up to comparison with Clara Haskil, Clifford Curzon, Murray Perahia, or Mitsuko Uchida, to name some other great ones I'm familiar with. Those really are indispensable.


----------



## FrankinUsa

John Zito said:


> What works that he didn't record do you wish that he had? Knowing what you know about your preferences and his approach, what additional Szell/Cleveland recordings would you will into existence with optimism that you'd find them really enjoyable/interesting?


Great question. In his last season,Szell conducted Das Lied Von Der Erde. It was released-and never seen again-in a Cleveland release. I think it was the 75th Anniversary of Cleveland. There was also a Szell broadcast of Mahler 9. I have that as part of a Szell box from Cleveland Orchestra. I wish both were recorded in studio. 
Szell recorded the Tchaikovsky 4&5. There is a broadcast of the 6th. That's another one I would love to have a studio recording. 
At the present those are the three pieces that I wish we would have Szell studio recordings.


----------



## FrankinUsa

RogerWaters said:


> Obviously this doesn't correct for number of recordings made nor the playlists spotify creates that would direct many 'casual' listeners who want some 'classical music', but for what it's worth here is the popularity of some conductors, including Szell, for Spotify listeners. Monthly listens:
> 
> Karajan: 2,617,000
> Bernstein: 1,582,000
> Abaddo: 1,370,000
> Ormandy: 624,000
> Davis: 523,000
> Bohm: 498,000
> Barbirolli: 271,000
> Szell: 220,000
> Haitink: 177,000
> Reiner: 97,000
> Wand: 83,000
> Furtwangler: 47,000
> Celibidache: 33,000
> Klemperer: 32,000
> Walter: 29,123
> Toascanini: 9,600


Wow. Great info. Thank you. It sort of makes sense.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Obviously this doesn't correct for number of recordings made nor the playlists spotify creates that would direct many 'casual' listeners who want some 'classical music', but for what it's worth here is the popularity of some conductors, including Szell, for Spotify listeners. Monthly listens:
> Karajan: 2,617,000
> ..........


Maybe Karajan is like Andre Rieu (no pun intended)


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> And further to Heck's comment about Szell building a superb orchestra -- The superb 1969 Stravinsky le Sacre du printemps with Pierre Boulez conducting imo is superb in large part because Szell built such a superb orchestra.....


Yes, that Boulez "Le Sacre" is a great recording...it was Szell's band at their best - the balance and precision are so excellent...very important for a work like "Le Sacre". It's one of my top favorites, along with Bernstein/NYPO, Solti/CSO, Mehta/LAPO


----------



## starthrower

BTW, some of you Szell/Cleveland Orchestra fans may be interested to know that classical music writer and critic, Donald Rosenberg, has written a history of the orchestra entitled Second To None. I have a copy and it's a pretty interesting read.


----------



## Heck148

starthrower said:


> BTW, some of you Szell/Cleveland Orchestra fans may be interested to know that classical music writer and critic, Donald Rosenberg, has written a history of the orchestra entitled Second To None. I have a copy and it's a pretty interesting read.


I have that book...it's good....


----------



## John Zito

starthrower said:


> BTW, some of you Szell/Cleveland Orchestra fans may be interested to know that classical music writer and critic, Donald Rosenberg, has written a history of the orchestra entitled Second To None. I have a copy and it's a pretty interesting read.


I just started rereading it the other day! One of the main things you learn is that the pre-Szell era was hardly chopped liver. The orchestra was small, underpaid, and didn't have year-round work (all of which persisted into the Szell era), but even so they took some pretty big swings. Severance Hall opened in 1931, Artur Rodziński became music director in 1933, and from November 1934 to December 1936, the orchestra had this insane run of presenting fully staged opera: _Die Walküre_, _Otello_, _Tosca_, _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_ (that work's American premiere), _Il barbiere di Siviglia_, _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_, _Der Rosenkavalier_, _Carmen_, _Die Fledermaus_, _Parsifal_, _Tannhäuser_, _Elektra_.


----------



## starthrower

John Zito said:


> I just started rereading it the other day! One of the main things you learn is that the pre-Szell era was hardly chopped liver. The orchestra was small, underpaid, and didn't have year-round work (all of which persisted into the Szell era), but even so they took some pretty big swings. Severance Hall opened in 1931, Artur Rodziński became music director in 1933, and from November 1934 to December 1936, the orchestra had this insane run of presenting fully staged opera: _Die Walküre_, _Otello_, _Tosca_, _Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk_ (that work's American premiere), _Il barbiere di Siviglia_, _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_, _Der Rosenkavalier_, _Carmen_, _Die Fledermaus_, _Parsifal_, _Tannhäuser_, _Elektra_.


Yeah! I love reading about the early days and how both the musicians and patrons of the arts worked to make things happen and build the orchestra and organization, and present numerous concerts.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Why is it Szell never recorded choral or opera works? 

I find that interesting considering his style. This repertoire requires the ability to conduct a long legato line, the opposite of stiffness.


.


----------



## Malx

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is it Szell never recorded choral or opera works?
> 
> I find that interesting considering his style. This repertoire requires the ability to conduct a long legato line, the opposite of stiffness.
> 
> .


Could it be as simple as the divas of his day and he would never have seen eye to eye - can you imagine the battles of wills in the studio!


----------



## John Zito

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is it Szell never recorded choral or opera works?
> 
> I find that interesting considering his style. This repertoire requires the ability to conduct a long legato line, the opposite of stiffness.
> 
> .


Good question. Especially because he had Robert Shaw training the chorus. My guess would be it had something to do with the record label?

There is that live Missa solemnis that some folks swear by.


----------



## fbjim

It could have been a record company thing as well. Szell was on Epic/Columbia who I believe had the Met Opera contract (at some point I think this went to RCA), and maybe they figured the Met was likely a better prospect for sales than Cleveland.


----------



## Heck148

John Zito said:


> I just started rereading it the other day! One of the main things you learn is that the pre-Szell era was hardly chopped liver. The orchestra was small, underpaid, and didn't have year-round work (all of which persisted into the Szell era),


Musicians are like most people, certainly like professional athletes, in that they like to play for a winning team. 
With musicians there are two main priorities when it comes to accepting and/or staying with a job
1. the $$ is good
2. the music is good
3. the best - both $$ and music are good.

Cleveland, at the beginning of the Szell era was definitely a lower scale orchestra, not full-time, and this showed up in its personnel rosters....musicians were always leaving to take other jobs, seasonal gigs, or whatever, lots of in and out, etc.....it was a major step forward to be able to offer full-time employment. Even then the $$ was well below the other major orchestras - NYPO, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago....
but, musicians stayed on, because the music was great.....even in the peak of the Szell era, the pay scale was still below the other majors...but the musicians, who could stand him, liked playing for Szell...so they stayed with it, for years....This provided that stability, consistency which leads to great orchestra playing, given the right leadership....
It's a testament to Szell and the orchestra that musicians remained with the group, even tho the $$ was better elsewhere.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^

What a great post :tiphat:


----------



## FrankinUsa

*Szell opera/choral performances etc.*



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why is it Szell never recorded choral or opera works?
> 
> I find that interesting considering his style. This repertoire requires the ability to conduct a long legato line, the opposite of stiffness.
> 
> .


There is an intervention with Szell if he would do any opera recordings. Although there are some opera recordings from Salzburg. And vocal recitals (Mahler-Schwarzkopf).

Paraphrasing. Rudolf Bing was asked if Szell was his own enemy. Bing replied,"Not as long as I am alive."


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> ^^^^
> 
> What a great post :tiphat:


Agreed. Heck helps us remember the business and personal sides of a professional symphony orchestra, and the impact they have on the musical side of things. One important trend in the business end of things, that began as far back as the 60s but only got worse in later decades, was the decrease in lucrative freelance work that was an important source of income for many orchestral musicians, especially those in New York and Los Angeles but in other large cities too. Movies, radio and early TV, and even musical theater, all were important sources of income that have diminished over the last 50 years.

Many great players, violinist David Nadian for example, spent their careers as studio musicians. Nadian briefly joined the New York Philharmonic as concertmaster, but found it not to his liking and soon returned to the studio. After starting his career as second flute in Cleveland, Julius Baker was principal in Pittsburgh under Reiner and in Chicago under Kubelik, but then, like many musicians after the war, went to New York, where he was active as a studio musician, including in recordings by the Columbia Symphony, which was the CBS house orchestra.

By this time it was generally acknowledged in the business that Baker the best flute player in the US, certainly better than the longtime NY Phil principal John Wummer, though he was no slouch. Wummer was finally convinced to retire and Baker took the principal position in NY in 1965, at the age of 50.

I don't think that would happen today. Denis Bouriakov, the best flutist in the US if not the world today (imo, with the possible exception of Emmanuel Pahud of the Berlin Philharmonic), took the Met Opera principal position, but when Peter Gelb decided that the band James Levine had built into one of the world's best didn't have to be that good (his own words!) and so didn't have to pay top dollar, Bouriakov left for the LA Philharmonic. Anthony McGill, the best clarinetist in the US and possibly the world today, left the Met Opera for the NY Philharmonic.

In the old days, Bouriakov and McGill likely would have followed the money to New York's lucrative studio work and freelanced, like Baker. But those days are over.


----------



## FrankinUsa

*Edit*



FrankinUsa said:


> There is an intervention with Szell if he would do any opera recordings. Although there are some opera recordings from Salzburg. And vocal recitals (Mahler-Schwarzkopf).
> 
> Paraphrasing. Rudolf Bing was asked if Szell was his own enemy. Bing replied,"Not as long as I am alive."


Interview. NOT intervention.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Denis Bouriakov, the best flutist in the US if not the world today (imo, with the possible exception of Emmanuel Pahud of the Berlin Philharmonic), took the Met Opera principal position, but when Peter Gelb decided that the band James Levine had built into one of the world's best didn't have to be that good (his own words!) and so didn't have to pay top dollar, Bouriakov left for the LA Philharmonic. Anthony McGill, the best clarinetist in the US and possibly the world today, left the Met Opera for the NY Philharmonic.


There has been a veritable exodus of woodwind principals from the MetOpera in recent years...it used to have the highest pay scale, tho with lots of services...but many principals left the orchestra...in addition to Bouriakov and McGill:
Steven Williamson - clar - to Chicago
Eugene Izotov - oboe - to Chicago, then LAPO
Whitney Crockett - bssn - LAPO
That's a lot of positions to fill...


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> There has been a veritable exodus of woodwind principals from the MetOpera in recent years...it used to have the highest pay scale, tho with lots of services...but many principals left the orchestra...in addition to Bouriakov and McGill:
> Steven Williamson - clar - to Chicago
> Eugene Izotov - oboe - to Chicago, then LAPO
> Whitney Crockett - bssn - LAPO
> That's a lot of positions to fill...


Peter Gelb is a ********. He has embraced high technology as the way to make traditional 19th century opera relevant today, and while technology is inevitably part of the scene these days and can't be ignored, it can't compensate if people don't find opera dramatically and musically compelling. If he doesn't think orchestra quality is important, why doesn't he replace it altogether with synthesizers and electric guitars, as has been done for many Broadway musicals? SMH.


----------



## Heck148

fluteman said:


> Peter Gelb is a ********. He has embraced high technology as the way to make traditional 19th century opera relevant today, and while technology is inevitably part of the scene these days and can't be ignored, it can't compensate if people don't find opera dramatically and musically compelling. If he doesn't think orchestra quality is important, why doesn't he replace it altogether with synthesizers and electric guitars, as has been done for many Broadway musicals? SMH.


The Met tried to pull a fast one during the covid shutdowns.....they put on some event, and rather than use their contracted musicians, tried to hire all substitutes, like a pick-up orchestra....I don't know how that came out....if they actually put the show on, or had to cancel it...that's really slimy in any case...


----------



## fluteman

Heck148 said:


> The Met tried to pull a fast one during the covid shutdowns.....they put on some event, and rather than use their contracted musicians, tried to hire all substitutes, like a pick-up orchestra....I don't know how that came out....if they actually put the show on, or had to cancel it...that's really slimy in any case...


Yes, that was last year's New Year's Eve pay-per-view gala. This summer, the Met reached a deal with the orchestra including pay cuts, some but not all of which would be restored once box office revenues return to 90 percent of pre-pandemic levels, and reducing the number of full time members from 90 to 83.


----------



## FrankinUsa

Returning to Szell,,,,
Someone questioned his lack of choral/operatic recordings.

Szell developed in the old tradition. Working through opera houses. That was through the 1930’s until the Nazi terror. Szell was a major conductor of the NYC Metropolitan in the mid 1940’s. Szell performed plenty of vocal/choral works. I have a performance of Beethoven/Missa Solemnis that is awe-inspiring. However,there is an interview with Szell in the 1960’s. He was asked if he would go back into opera. He said that he would not due to sub-optimal standards. 

Any insinuation that Szell stayed away from vocal/operatic works is getting desperate.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Desperate? His lack of choral/opera output compared to his conducting peers of similar stature is conspicuous. There’s nothing controversial about that statement. It’s objectively true. I was just wondering the reason for it.


----------



## fbjim

How many non-Met conductors of that period who worked in the United States did too many opera records? Always seemed like most of the American stuff I come across was Leinsdorf or Mitropoulous.


That, and when a record company which didn't have the Met contract released opera, it seemed like they'd just license an overseas recording from Decca or something, rather than find an American opera to record.


----------



## fluteman

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Desperate? His lack of choral/opera output compared to his conducting peers of similar stature is conspicuous. There's nothing controversial about that statement. It's objectively true. I was just wondering the reason for it.


I'm not arguing with that, but I'd point out that his 1961 Beethoven 9th is famous, and I think justifiably so. He also recorded the Strauss Four Last Songs with Schwarzkopf. The problem may have been simply that Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra didn't have one of the major record labels behind them. They recorded for the smaller Epic label, and got minimal distribution in the UK with the British Columbia subsidiary of EMI, which doubtless didn't want to create competition for their own artists. The original 1963 release on a British Columbia 2-LP set of Szell's Beethoven 9th sells for thousands on the collector's market. American Columbia Masterworks (i.e., CBS), finally took over when Epic dropped classical music in 1967, but Szell died in 1970. Columbia then reissued most of the Szell/Cleveland records on its Odyssey label.


----------



## FrankinUsa

fluteman said:


> I'm not arguing with that, but I'd point out that his 1961 Beethoven 9th is famous, and I think justifiably so. He also recorded the Strauss Four Last Songs with Schwarzkopf. The problem may have been simply that Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra didn't have one of the major record labels behind them. They recorded for the smaller Epic label, and got minimal distribution in the UK with the British Columbia subsidiary of EMI, which doubtless didn't want to create competition for their own artists. The original 1963 release on a British Columbia 2-LP set of Szell's Beethoven 9th sells for thousands on the collector's market. American Columbia Masterworks (i.e., CBS), finally took over when Epic dropped classical music in 1967, but Szell died in 1970. Columbia then reissued most of the Szell/Cleveland records on its Odyssey label.


fluteman….great point. And Szell hired Robert Shaw to be the director of the Cleveland Orchestra Chorus. Shaw already had built a great reputation as a choral director. There should be no questions about Szell's ability and knowledge and a sense of importance of choral or opera. Non whatsoever.


----------



## FrankinUsa

I am going to try to type in an interview between Michael Charry and Myron Bloom. It was part of the liner notes to a CD release;Sony Classical,Szell,Cleveland-Richard Strauss,Don Quixote-Pierre Fournier,Don Juan,Horn Concerto 1 with Myron Bloom as soloist. 
I hope there will be no auto-correct/spelling errors. Ok,here I go. 

MYRON BLOOM REMEMBERS GEORGE SZELL. 
by Michael Charry. 

Myron Bloom was born in Cleveland,where he studied with Cleveland Orchestra second hornist Martin Morris. During my tenure as apprentice and associate conductor to Szell at the Cleveland(1961-1972) I had the opportunity to work with both Morris and his former pupil Bloom,who had become a matchless team. I asked Bloom how he first came to the Cleveland Orchestra:
Myron Bloom:I was playing at Marlboro,and Berl Senofsky(assistant concertmaster of the Cleveland Orchestra from 1951 to 1955) heard me play and arranged an audition with Szell. So I came to Cleveland,I played,and that was it. He hired me for third horn(in 1954). A year later,I got a call from Chicago saying, “We’d like to have you come and play first horn here.” I went to Szell and said,”I’ve been offered Chicago,first horn,and I want to take it.” Szell said to me,”Haven’t you heard? You’re going to be the next first horn of the Cleveland Orchestra.”

Michael Charry: Do you remember your first concerts as first horn,how that felt?
MB: I remember that whole first year. I was in a total state of shock. I’d walk on the stage and off like a zombie,my face white with fear and apprehension and panic-for the whole first year. I remember the first “Till Eulenspiegel.” Szell rode me mercilessly,and I was beside myself. I said,”I can’t let this go on.” This was my first experience with him in any way. I walked back,knocked on his door,and he said,”Yes,” and I walked in. Before I could say a word,I burst into tears. And he was so….sensitive. He embraced me. He was incredible. 
MC: Tell me about playing the Strauss concerto. 
MB: For the Strauss,Szell played the piano. I played the horn. We went right through it from beginning to end. He said,”Stunning.” Then with the orchestra,I just went right through it,never stopped. On the recording,I made just one insert,that was it. Right through from beginning to end. 
MC:What else do you remember about playing with Szell?
MB: I remember everything I played with Szell and the orchestra. I remember the Mahler 9th very well. I know I’m patting myself on the back,but I can’t resist telling my Mahler Ninth story. We played the Mahler Ninth in New York and then took it to Boston. The Boston critic,Michael Steinberg,wrote a very long article in the Sunday paper,which featured me. It went on and on about me. He compared me with every other horn player then playing. It was such an ego bath for me,but it was well written,and(laughs) I believed it,of course. The next day in Boston,when I got in the elevator,there was Szell. We were alone,and he said,”Can I touch you?” A perfect straight line. 
MC: You said,”Szell lives inside me all the time. “ Can you explain what that means to you?
MB: Szell’s way of music was to get everything clear and in order at first. Then the music-making could start. It couldn’t begin unless everything was right:rhythm,dynamics,articulation. But then when you began,when all that was in place……
MC:Then what happened?
MB:Magic.


----------



## fluteman

I don't think it can be seriously disputed that Szell was a great conductor. IMO, Toscanini and his disciples Reiner, Szell, Ormandy and Rodzinski raised the technical level of symphony orchestra playing in the US to sky high levels. That legacy hasn't disappeared completely, but economic pressures have taken their toll in recent years.


----------



## Heck148

For an excellent view of Szell and his relationships with his musicians - I highly recommend:

<<Tales from the Locker Room -
An Anecdotal Portrait of George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestras>>

by
Lawrence Angell
Bernette Jaffe

Personal stories and anecdotes of individuals and their dealings with Szell...

good read, and highly entertaining....


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Desperate? His lack of choral/opera output compared to his conducting peers of similar stature is conspicuous. There's nothing controversial about that statement. It's objectively true. I was just wondering the reason for it.


They'll always say "cause he was a 'specialist' ".


----------



## John Zito

fluteman said:


> Many great players, violinist David Nadian for example, spent their careers as studio musicians. Nadian briefly joined the New York Philharmonic as concertmaster, but found it not to his liking and soon returned to the studio.


Since you mention him, this is a real treat:






And to bring it back around he mentions that Szell was the "most helpful" conductor as a concerto accompanist (51:17).


----------



## FrankinUsa

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this.


----------

