# What would possess people to do this?



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I mean _this........_






When one of my friends heard it they could hardly recognise it and could not bear to listen to it for more than a minute or so.

How was this style of playing normal for Baroque music? Did they not have texts regarding tempo etc.? If this was given a review today would it be rated as a good or bad interpretation? Has HIP corrupted our ears into thinking this interpretation is bad when it may actually be extrememly good?

Personally if I heard Baroque music played like this in a concert I would walk out.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I don't care for HIP versions, and I love Bach by Karajan or Richter - but this one did not sit well with me either.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Oh wow...that is _slow_....

It feels like a movie shot at 6 frames per second, or something. Give me HIP Bach any day of the week.


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

I didn't recognise it either. I had to find another version on YT before I remembered what it was. 

Sounds like my (very beginner) husband trying to play theme from the New World on the violin. The notes were there, but not in any rhythm as we know it.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I don't care for The Furt in anything, so feel free to pile on.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Is Furtwangler not renowned for his sluggish tempos? And by 'sluggish' I mean, he conducts as if he had no home to go home to...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

For people wishing to cleanse their ears after Furtwängler.....


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I managed to make it as far as the beginning of the Gavotte. Then I couldn't take any more. Enough! Give me harpsichords and gut strings and tunings a half step lower than today's! I won't stand for this any longer!

*Marches out pompously*


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Its not my favourite way to hear this piece but I like it.
It's majestic, grand and beautiful - though I can think of many reasons why this music should not be performed in this way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If you like this, try Klemperer's Beethoven cycle. They both seem cut from the same mold; super-slow lugubrious tempos, overly romanticised. I kinda like it as a bizarre novelty.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2013)

Honestly, if I didn't know what I was listening to, this really is fairly enjoyable. Again - a testament to Bach as to how versatile his music is. Knowing what it is, I do much prefer the faster tempo, the smaller ensemble, and the period instruments. Still, though, I would not turn this off. For the record, I am a huge HIP fan, and while I am not a Furtwangler-phile, I do enjoy his EMI mono recording of Beethoven's 9th symphony.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If you like this, try Klemperer's Beethoven cycle. They both seem cut from the same mold; super-slow lugubrious tempos, overly romanticised. I kinda like it as a bizarre novelty.


I know Klemperer has that reputation, but I didn't find his Beethoven symphonies to be that slow - now, if you compared them to, say, Gardiner, or Immerseel with Anima Eterna, then yes. Now, if you want slow, Furtwangler certainly won't disappoint - his recording of Beethoven's 9th on EMI is a good example. Better yet, if you want slow, go listen to Celibidache conducting Bruckner's 4th symphony, or Mozart's Requiem.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The sound is not good, the tempo is extremely slow and the orchestra often poorly integrated; some nice singing the strings now and then though, heavily influenced by late-romantic ideals of course.

In general I don´t find old orchestral Bach recordings (meaning pre-1955 or so) much to my taste, often they suffer from those mentioned "faults", and the playing of these pieces seems to have been quite rare back then. It applies to _Edwin Fischer_´s Bach piano concertos also, for instance. _Scherchen_ tried a somewhat slender Bach playing compared to this, and _Casals_´ Brandenburgs can be intriguing too, however. _Boyd Neel, Wöldike_ and _Günther Ramin _seem rather dull to me, but I haven´t heard that much.

However the old-school taste does not necessarily mean slow and massive tempi - 
_Casals_ went to the other extreme sometimes, such as this 





and _Jascha Heifetz_ did excellent, "quick-step" Bach,





_Mengelberg_´s recordings, albeit in poor sound, such as the St. Matthew




 (but what a ridiculous picture here :-()
are better examples of the sometimes exalted, spirited feeling in these old recordings - like Edwin Fischer in some of his old piano solo recordings, or Casals in some of the cello works, and of course _Feinberg_´s superb Wohltemperiertes.

_Furtwängler _did a St. Matthew too, but I haven´t heard it. It´s usually considered less successful than Mengelberg´s.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Oddly enough though I generally don't listen to as much Romantic era music as I do Baroque and Modern I actually often like Bach conducted in a somewhat Romantic way. Other than the poor sound quality I quite enjoyed this, and consider it one of the better interpretations of this piece I've listened to.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DrMike said:


> I know Klemperer has that reputation, but I didn't find his Beethoven symphonies to be that slow - now, if you compared them to, say, Gardiner, or Immerseel with Anima Eterna, then yes. Now, if you want slow, Furtwangler certainly won't disappoint - his recording of Beethoven's 9th on EMI is a good example. Better yet, if you want slow, go listen to Celibidache conducting Bruckner's 4th symphony, or Mozart's Requiem.


Yes, I know about Celibidache. I dig him. I read that he bases his tempos on the acoustics of each hall, and how long the echo is. The more echo, the slower.

I think I'll get some Furtwangler. I saw a 10-CD on Aura/Membrane/Documents; I wonder if it's a good one?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It would make a great prelude to Parsifal!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think I'll get some Furtwangler. I saw a 10-CD on Aura/Membrane/Documents; I wonder if it's a good one?


I have the big Furtie box on Membran and it's spectacular. Good sound and fantastic performances. Very well chosen. The smaller box is probably good too.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Furtwängler budget sets include:

Membran: 10 CD set http://cd.ciao.co.uk/Productinformation/Wilhelm_Furtwangler_Box_Wilhelm_Furtwangler__8460230 (poor transfers)
Membran: 3x10 CD "Furtwängler - Maestro Classico" (poor transfers)

Membran - Artone: 4 CD set http://www.amazon.com/Furtwangler-L...dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Membran: a 107 CD set "complete" http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtwängler-Legacy-Dietrich-Fischer-Dieskau/dp/B004JC16LC

EMI: http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtwangler-The-Great-Recordings/dp/B004CHURXW

DG: http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtw...2-1944-Vol/dp/B00005ONMK/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_3
http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtw...2-1944-Vol/dp/B00005ONML/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_2

(etc.)

The repertoire is quite varying, so much depends on one´s taste in that respect. 
His wartime Bruckner 8+9 (BPO 1944-45, not others) and his Beethoven generally are among the highlights (cf. artone 4CD for instance)


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The one I have is Wilhelm Furtwangler: The Legacy (107 CDs/Membran). Got it for $80 from a third party Amazon seller in Germany.

http://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Furtwängler-Legacy-Dietrich-Fischer-Dieskau/dp/B004JC16LC


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

OKay, if we want every interpretation to be exactly the same, then what the hell is even the point of live musicians and conductors? Just to be playback machines? I love this piece, and the performance in the OP is beautiful. Sure, I have preferences for how I like to hear most pieces I like, but its nice to hear very different takes on things. Scores often have alot of very ambiguous elements to them, especially the further back we go. I like that there are people who put something of themselves into these pieces they play. Otherwise why even do it? Historically informed performances are great, but so are creative interpretations. Furtwangler's interpretation brings out the gorgeous romanticism of Bach.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Do people just prefer Bach sounding like its played by a machine? Guess thats why Glenn Gould is so highly regarded.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Whatever his interpretive quirks, Furtwangler was undoubtedly one of the greatest conductors of all time .
There is no use blaming him for not performing Bach as you may be accustomed to hearing it on period instruments by musicians who may know all about the "correct" way of performing Bach,Handel, Haydn,and Mozart etc but have only a tiny fraction of his interpretive genius .
He was born in 1886 , only three years after the death of Wagner , and lived until 1954, many years before 
HIP performance became the norm . His maternal grandfather was a close friend of Brahms, and he knew and studied with many renowned musicians of the late 19th century . He came from a different musical era .
Yes, the tempo was rather slow for opening of the Bach suite , but no, Furtwangler's tempi were not 
unduly slow as a whole ; in fact, many of his recordings ,live or studio, are highly propulsive, even febrile .Even when his tempi are deliberate, there is almost always an inner tension which keeps th eline from going slack .
You can criticize his Bach on stylistic grounds, but when it comes to composers such as Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Bruckner, Wagner and other great Austro-German composers , there is no denying that Furtwangler was one of the supreme masters of their music . His performances are characterized by a kind of spontaneity and have a wonderfully improviasatory feel to them . He was one of the most inspired and inspiring musicians who ever lived .


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Is Furtwangler not renowned for his sluggish tempos? And by 'sluggish' I mean, he conducts as if he had no home to go home to...


Normally not,but this is the way things were.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

As with all directors and pieces, there's not one single recipe for success. I find Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th to be awesome and his 5th and 7th to be just okay. I wouldn't go to him for baroque music but I wouldn't go to Gardiner for anything other than baroque music for example. Baroque music is the one type that probably sounds always better in a slightly faster and less romanticized performance but even then there are exceptions. Even with the same conductor: Klemperer's St Matthew Passion's opening chorus lasts longer than all other works of music put together probably yet it has a significance and aura of profound contemplation that only a fee HIP performances achieve; his B-minor Mass, on the other hand, actually drags. 

Thank God (or whomever) for different conductors and approaches.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Normally not,but this is the way things were.


Yeah, the guy was _not_ 'reknowned for his sluggish tempos. You could be thinking of Klemp - in some recordings, not all of them.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yeah, the guy was _not_ 'reknowned for his sluggish tempos. You could be thinking of Klemp - in some recordings, not all of them.


I presume this is aimed at the OP and not me,Furtwaengler is the greatest, Klemps boring !!!
Here's the thing,I prefer the massive Victorian way of doing Bach and Handel because it has guts ,give me Stokowski's Bach that's what I say---but remember I'm a dinosaur---ROOOOAAAR!!!! (And proud of it).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

moody said:


> ...Furtwaengler is the greatest, Klemps boring !!!


Well, give me the Klemp-man's Beethoven any time I feel like rolling those heavy armored divisions across the border of some small defensless country. Yeah!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Do people just prefer Bach sounding like its played by a machine? Guess thats why Glenn Gould is so highly regarded.


Do you _not_ enjoy Glenn Gould's playing of Bach? Is that what a machine sounds like to you?

...last i checked, i was quite lonely in this camp...i wish i knew some of these people that regard him so highly...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

A nightmare of a bad joke -- sure it was thought a good idea at the time


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Klemperer's famous (or notorious) slow tempos came late in life , when most of his commerical recordings with EMI were made . At the time, he was suffering from severe health problems ,including strokes, a brain tumor, injuries ( he appears to have been very accident prone ) etc. He suffered from bi-polar disorder at a time before lithium medication was discovered as a means to treat this . In his later years, he was paralyzed on one side of his body from a stroke, and it left his face with a permanent scowl . 
In his earlier years, he appears to have been the exact opposite , and his performances are said to have been highly propulsive and impetuous . But he had an indomitable will which eanbled him to continue his conducting career despite ailments and problems which would have destroyed a weaker person. He was a very interesting guy .


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

superhorn said:


> Klemperer's famous (or notorious) slow tempos came late in life , when most of his commerical recordings with EMI were made . At the time, he was suffering from severe health problems ,including strokes, a brain tumor, injuries ( he appears to have been very accident prone ) etc. He suffered from bi-polar disorder at a time before lithium medication was discovered as a means to treat this . In his later years, he was paralyzed on one side of his body from a stroke, and it left his face with a permanent scowl .
> *In his earlier years, he appears to have been the exact opposite , and his performances are said to have been highly propulsive and impetuous *. But he had an indomitable will which eanbled him to continue his conducting career despite ailments and problems which would have destroyed a weaker person. He was a very interesting guy .


Yes, cf. this early Mozart Symphony 25


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

moody said:


> I presume this is aimed at the OP and not me,Furtwaengler is the greatest, Klemps boring !!!
> Here's the thing,I prefer the massive Victorian way of doing Bach and Handel because it has guts ,give me Stokowski's Bach that's what I say---but remember I'm a dinosaur---ROOOOAAAR!!!! (And proud of it).


I must be one too, because I agree with you on Furtie, Klemp and Stoki!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Is Furtwangler not renowned for his sluggish tempos? And by 'sluggish' I mean, he conducts as if he had no home to go home to...


I think you should have a look at the thread "Furtwangler--What Made Him So Great ?"
Also,an even better idea try listening to some recordings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> Do people just prefer Bach sounding like its played by a machine? Guess thats why Glenn Gould is so highly regarded.


I'm sure you likened Gould's rendering of Bach to a 'machine' as a matter of exaggerated hyperbole, because of course it is not 'machine-like' in the least (now we have midi playback and quantize for comparison to 'machine' that Gould is not 'machine-like' is that much more obvious) -- but I truly hope for your sake this statement was hyperbole, or it (for me) throws in question exactly how little you might be able to discern when you listen -- _and I'm sure that is not the case_, that instead your comment is more a matter of heated hyperbole


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Interesting as 'surreal' with or without experience of later 'HIP' recordings. i've never been a reflexive fan of the ole Thuringian anyway, but even with the wide lattitude of 'what works' and accounting for extreme acoustic 'delay' -- this still sounds just "Surreal." It also sounds like the players are receiving the signal of 'where the beat is' in a various array of temporal realities -- crunch / slosh, crunch / slosh, that last being what I find most intolerable, if not 'a major turn-off.'


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Klemperer doesn't transmogrify Beethoven's symphonies into something wholly unrecognizable. His slow tempo is reasonable, compared to this anyway!

I can't listen to this.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I'm sure you likened Gould's rendering of Bach to a 'machine' as a matter of exaggerated hyperbole, because of course it is not 'machine-like' in the least (now we have midi playback and quantize for comparison to 'machine' that Gould is not 'machine-like' is that much more obvious) -- but I truly hope for your sake this statement was hyperbole, or it (for me) throws in question exactly how little you might be able to discern when you listen -- _and I'm sure that is not the case_, that instead your comment is more a matter of heated hyperbole


I guess sometimes his machine-like playing turns into playing like a spaz.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

joen_cph said:


> Yes, cf. this early Mozart Symphony 25


Phrasing is robotic and artificial, like machines in a car factory, balance is relatively poor, there only seems to be two dynamics (soft and loud) and I can't hear any crescendos or diminuendos. The development section becomes boring due to lack of varied phrasing and dynamics in sequences and repetitions. The playing is needlessly fast and sometimes sloppy and the ending is too abrupt due to lack of proper phrasing. And that is just a summary of the first movement. This recording should be destroyed!

I need to cleanse my ears now:


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't understand all the hate for the Fürtwangler Bach in the OP. It was much more enjoyable for me than any HIP recording I've heard.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I don't understand all the hate for the Fürtwangler Bach in the OP. It was much more enjoyable for me than any HIP recording I've heard.


Agree. I generally like HIP-type performances, but might occasionally be in the mood for something like this. But a better recording would be welcome!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Interesting as 'surreal' with or without experience of later 'HIP' recordings. i've never been a reflexive fan of the ole Thuringian anyway, but even with the wide lattitude of 'what works' and accounting for extreme acoustic 'delay' -- this still sounds just "Surreal." It also sounds like the players are receiving the signal of 'where the beat is' in a various array of temporal realities -- crunch / slosh, crunch / slosh, that last being what I find most intolerable, if not 'a major turn-off.'


Furtwangler was able to take this piece and give it a feeling of depth and atmosphere, a little bit more mysterious and unique. Bach's music often sounds good with this approach. If a piece like this is sped up too much it's made light and bouncy - it starts sounding too much like Handel.

Since you are more of a fan of the latter and not the former, I don't consider you an authority on this matter. :devil:


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Why didn't he do it like this, I love this video. Makes me think the role of the conductor is more varied than I ever knew!


----------



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

_"I admire Furtwängler for his originality and honesty. He liberated himself from slavery to the score ; he realized that notes printed in the score, are nothing but SYMBOLS. The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwängler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."_


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Zauberberg said:


> _"I admire Furtwängler for his originality and honesty. He liberated himself from slavery to the score ; he realized that notes printed in the score, are nothing but SYMBOLS. The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwängler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."_


That's a fascinating quote. It cuts to the core of understanding music, in some senses. Or - _understanding music as it's presented to us_. A composers intentions are indicated in the score, but the conductor has freedom to interpret these intentions, based upon his own knowledge/preference/experience. But should the finished performance reflect the composer or the conductor? The OP shows a performance of Bach that's almost heading in reverse, it's so slow. Is the conductor trying to communicate some extra-textual message by slowing it down this way? Is he trying to refresh the page, as it were?

Or has he misunderstood the composers intentions? Or were the composers intentions not so dogmatically asserted, anyway?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Jinn 
Personal interpretations sometimes aren't nice.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I mean _this........_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for loading. I agree. That just sounded so very terrible! No wonder people might hate Baroque music if they heard it performed like that. He wanted to make it sound like a Bruckner symphony.

This is quite a good thread idea. Klemperer conducting Brandenburg no.5 , at least he used a harpsichord but it sounded terrible! Compare with a HIP version below.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

I personally don't mind some of these older baroque recordings. Hell, I even really enjoy Klemperer's recording of Bach's St. Matthew Passion. I enjoy most everything Klemperer recorded - his Mozart Magic Flute, his Beethoven Fidelio, his Brahms symphonies, his Mahler 2nd Symphony (the live recording especially), his Beethoven symphonies, you name it. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that these modern conductors have written the final word on how these works should be performed. There isn't even agreement among HIP conductors. Take the Brandenburg Concertos and the Orchestral Suites by Bach for example - I have numerous HIP recordings of both of these, and they vary drastically. 

Mock these conductors now, but their performances are still selling more than half a century after they were recorded. Furtwangler and Klemperer are names well recognized and respected in classical music. I would hate it if their works ceased to be appreciated.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2013)

Incidentally, my current favorite recording of the Brandenburgs is by Jordi Savall, and although he is HIP, he takes tempos slower than that of Goebel, although still faster than Klemperer. I think sometimes newer conductors take things just a bit too fast.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Exactly, HIPs often seem to forget to pause a bit during phrasing and the result can be a feeling of rushed restlessness
- another minus can be the at times clownish-sounding original instruments .


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

It's a touch slow, but not bad really. I hate Baroque *GRAND* opening movements played too quickly.

EDIT: I prefer the HIP Brandenburg - but someone in the studio has boosted that harpsichord about 10 times!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Novelette said:


> Klemperer doesn't transmogrify Beethoven's symphonies into something wholly unrecognizable. His slow tempo is reasonable, compared to this anyway!
> 
> I can't listen to this.


This was the way Bach and Handel was played once and it is not to be compared with Beethove--how did Klemperer do Bach?
One thing you can be sure of Furtwaengler's Beethoven made Klemperer's look stodgy and boring---which it is.
I should have read on--I see we have a bit of Klemps Bach--do you love it?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Bach is bigger than any one "proper" approach.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Bach is bigger than any one "proper" approach.


Agreed. I may prefer HIP Baroque music in general, but that doesn't mean I won't accept an excellent piano or modern orchestra performance if the interpretation is good.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Whoa! Let's get this straight. JS Bach is no bigger than GG.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I managed to make it as far as the beginning of the Gavotte. Then I couldn't take any more. Enough! Give me harpsichords and gut strings and tunings a half step lower than today's! I won't stand for this any longer!
> 
> *Marches out pompously*


Sixteen bars or less was more than enough for me to tell there was no use, as it were, adding further insult to the injury already inflicted. That patient's prognosis, no matter how long it took, was imminent 'death.'

This reminds me of an occasion where a music history prof at the uni I attended gave a one-work piano recital of "Pictures at an exhibition." A student peer, a piano major, told me he had never heard the work, and that immediately after that recital, his piano teacher (on staff at same said uni) told him, "What you heard had nothing to do with "Pictures" and there is only one remedy which you must urgently take: Run to the library! NOW! Listen to any random recording available. I will arrange that your absence from your next class is excused."

Sometimes a composer's work is so distinctive that no matter how corrupted, some strength of it is evident even to the initiate listener.

There are times when there is only so much fat, lard, butter, jam or icing one can heap onto a bit of toast or cake that the toast or cake get completely lost. A lot of 'better' music, distorted as it is, will still have its 'toast' or 'cake' come through, even under the burden of all the dressings.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

superhorn said:


> Klemperer's famous (or notorious) slow tempos came late in life , when most of his commerical recordings with EMI were made . At the time, he was suffering from severe health problems ,including strokes, a brain tumor, injuries ( he appears to have been very accident prone ) etc. He suffered from bi-polar disorder at a time before lithium medication was discovered as a means to treat this . In his later years, he was paralyzed on one side of his body from a stroke, and it left his face with a permanent scowl .
> In his earlier years, he appears to have been the exact opposite , and his performances are said to have been highly propulsive and impetuous . But he had an indomitable will which eanbled him to continue his conducting career despite ailments and problems which would have destroyed a weaker person. He was a very interesting guy .


And, not to mention he was also the father of Colonel Klink!
GG


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

In the Gobel/Cologne video, I noticed that that cellos are on the conductor's right instead of the 
having the 1st and 2nd violins divided . Why is this? Not to have divided violins is supposed to be
a musicological no no . Not politically correct at all . 
It doesn't bother me, but many critics and musicologist get their panties in a bunch when they attend a concert and the violins are not divided, even in music of the Romantic and modern eras .


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Certain artists including Furtwaengler,Shura Cherkassky --the great Russian pianist--and Cellibidache ---he wouldn't record in any case--are preferable heard live rather than in studio recordings. In the case of these three every performance of whichever work was different.
I've just been listening to Furtwaengler's Beethoven 7th for the umpteenth time and it is a fascinating adventure.
This is the live recording from Berlin's Philharmonic Hall given in 1943 do not worry about the sound it is excellent and everything is easily heard.
There are huge fluctuations in tempi,but with him there always were.
The last movement is the most extraordinary,at times he goes so fast that it's a wonder the orchestra kept up at all,I've certainly heard nothing like it ---your hair stands on end!
Whether you can find this on YouTube I know not--but if you can listen to it you will unsderstand what all the fuss is about.
Note an interesting fact,most books on famous conductors start off with Toscanini, Furtwaengler and Bruno Walter.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2013)

moody said:


> Certain artists including Furtwaengler,Shura Cherkassky --the great Russian pianist--and Cellibidache ---he wouldn't record in any case--are preferable heard live rather than in studio recordings. In the case of these three every performance of whichever work was different.
> I've just been listening to Furtwaengler's Beethoven 7th for the umpteenth time and it is a fascinating adventure.
> This is the live recording from Berlin's Philharmonic Hall given in 1943 do not worry about the sound it is excellent and everything is easily heard.
> There are huge fluctuations in tempi,but with him there always were.
> ...


While I have no problem listening to older mono recordings, I think it is a stretch to say that any of them are "excellent." They are what they are. If you use an adjective like "excellent" for a mono recording that probably has some crackling and distortion at the upper and lower ends and does not have stereo separation, what words does that leave you to describe a recording that does not have those issues?

As for most books on famous conductors beginning with Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Walter, you might ask when most of those books were written. Every period has its famous conductors. These ones no doubt get a lot of praise (and a lot of it rightly so) because they were there with the advent of mass-produced, commercially available recordings of their work. How many great conductors preceded them that don't get as much recognition because we simply have no way of corroborating contemporaneous accounts by going to the audio archive? And given some more time, what other names will be added to the list? There are certainly others that we can readily, and easily, add to the list of "famous" conductors - Leonard Bernstein, Herbert von Karajan, Charles Mackerras, Sir Neville Marriner, and the list goes on (and I think Klemperer deserves a place of prominence).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DrMike said:


> While I have no problem listening to older mono recordings, I think it is a stretch to say that any of them are "excellent." They are what they are. If you use an adjective like "excellent" for a mono recording that probably has some crackling and distortion at the upper and lower ends and does not have stereo separation, what words does that leave you to describe a recording that does not have those issues?
> 
> As for most books on famous conductors beginning with Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Walter, you might ask when most of those books were written. Every period has its famous conductors. These ones no doubt get a lot of praise (and a lot of it rightly so) because they were there with the advent of mass-produced, commercially available recordings of their work. How many great conductors preceded them that don't get as much recognition because we simply have no way of corroborating contemporaneous accounts by going to the audio archive? And given some more time, what other names will be added to the list? There are certainly others that we can readily, and easily, add to the list of "famous" conductors - Leonard Bernstein, Herbert von Karajan, Charles Mackerras, Sir Neville Marriner, and the list goes on (and I think Klemperer deserves a place of prominence).


I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the first half of this.For a start I am sure that people are capable of reading the date "1943" and therefore will not be expecting stereo sound,having said that the recording is from Berlin radio and anyone who has heard German off the air recordings know that they were light years ahead of the world. I have a recording of an Erna Berger recital where she could be in the room.
But of course you know this I'm sure with your experience of these things? The recording is excellent!
Incidentally ,what did you think of it when you listened to it ?
As for conductors,most of them certainly have Nikisch,etc. in them but I saw no point in mentioning such people because of the reasons you mention.
They all have Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer ,etc in there and i didn't say were absent. Mind you Marriner is not particularly exalted to my mind,but I would not want to deny you,would I?


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2013)

moody said:


> I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the first half of this.For a start I am sure that people are capable of reading the date "1943" and therefore will not be expecting stereo sound,having said that the recording is from Berlin radio and anyone who has heard German off the air recordings know that they were light years ahead of the world. I have a recording of an Erna Berger recital where she could be in the room.
> But of course you know this I'm sure with your experience of these things? The recording is excellent!
> Incidentally ,what did you think of it when you listened to it ?
> As for conductors,most of them certainly have Nikisch,etc. in them but I saw no point in mentioning such people because of the reasons you mention.
> They all have Bernstein, Karajan, Klemperer ,etc in there and i didn't say were absent. Mind you Marriner is not particularly exalted to my mind,but I would not want to deny you,would I?


I am assuming you refer to this recording?







I quite enjoyed the recording. Not my favorite, but as I said before, I quite enjoy Furtwangler - his recording of the 9th on EMI is one of my favorites.
But the sound isn't excellent. Now, if you want to say excellent for 1943, fine. But it has all the things I mentioned before - crackling, distortion. This is not finding fault with it - that was the technology at the time. The recording could be termed excellent, but not the sound, per se. If you want excellent sound, go listen to a new SACD version.

As I have already said - I am a huge fan of these older conductors, and don't feel it is right to slight their recordings for using performance practices that were entirely in the norm for that time. I also think it is sad that so many would reflexively reject such a performance style in this day and age. But that doesn't demand that I elevate it to more than it is. The sound is good, certainly good enough that you can fully enjoy it and it doesn't detract from that enjoyment. But it is not excellent sound.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2013)

But back to the original topic. I am not a sound engineer, and don't know the intricacies of recording. But does anybody know whether knowing that a performance was to be recorded in any way influenced the conducting of the performance? Given the limitations at the time of recording capabilities, would a conductor alter the way he would conduct a work to make the most of the recording technology? For example, would swifter tempos have been more difficult to record than slower tempos back in the earlier days of recording? Would the sound have gotten more garbled? More distortion and blaring? Better fidelity with a slower tempo? I don't know - I am wondering if anybody else might. I read somewhere of some work recorded very early, where the orchestra had to continuously stop, and the recording media had only limited space, and they had to continuously change it out. I would imagine this would greatly impact the overall performance.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Maybe I have something wrong but the Furtwängler's version sounds wonderful!

It is like just being there witnessing how the oeuvre develops by itself not pushing _things_ into a sort of theatrical show.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

DrMike said:


> While I have no problem listening to older mono recordings, I think it is a stretch to say that any of them are "excellent." They are what they are. If you use an adjective like "excellent" for a mono recording that probably has some crackling and distortion at the upper and lower ends and does not have stereo separation, what words does that leave you to describe a recording that does not have those issues?


There are plenty of monophonic recordings that are high fidelity full frequency range recordings. Even limited range recordings from 78s can be balanced and full sounding in the frequencies that really matter. On speakers, mono sound can be totally convincing, because the soundstage created by the placement of the speakers in the room can create the same sort of presence as stereo. Older recordings can certainly sound excellent if you have the right kind of equipment and have a balanced response.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

DrMike said:


> does anybody know whether knowing that a performance was to be recorded in any way influenced the conducting of the performance?


Yes and no. From a creative standpoint, I don't know of any conductors who compromised their artistic vision. But they did have to make allowances for technical issues. The biggest issue was side lengths. In the 78 era, a record side was around 5 minutes long. The work had to be divided into well organized segments. Usually, takes were recorded a record side at a time. But sometimes two alternating cutters were used, as in Walter's live Mahler 9th with the Vienna PO. Conductors were able to hit tempi precisely from take to take. On CD, sides are joined into a continuous performance, and it's rare for a side join not to work seamlessly.

But because of the number of sides involves, repeats are usually not taken in historical recordings.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

If the sleeve of your record says live in Berlin Philharmonic Hall Oct/Nov,1943,then it's the same. But the hall was bombed out in 1944 which is the date on your recording--it is a studio recording of DGG and therefore will not be the same in any way.
My recording was from Unicorn in conjunction with the Furtwaengler society. The owner of Unicorn whose name was Goldsmith was a Furtwaengler fanatic and made friends with Mrs.Furtwaengler and got hold of all sorts of material.
I think we should look at the information regarding wartime radio recordings in Germany .
I have before me a recording of Walter Gieseking playing Beethoven's "Emperor" concerto with the Berlin Radio Orchestra cond. Arthur Rother made in the 1940's and it's in stereo.
The point is that Germans were working with tape since the late 1930's. Most radio stations throughout the world were using acetate discs and the results are inferior both in music quality and lasting ability.
A great example is the Furtwaengler "Meistersinger" of 1943, not only was this recorded on tape but originally in stereo.
Sir Thomas Beecham tape recorded A Mozart symphony in Germany in 1936.
The tape recorder was not used in either the USA or Great Britain because it was not available. The first use in America was when Bing Crosby began transcribing his radio shows.
The tape recorder was unknown except in Nazi Germany but when the war ended both the Americans and the Russians ransacked the radio stations, they took away tape recorders and truck loads of recordings.
Many of these recordings are now available---e.g. large sets of lieder made during the bombing, there is no crackling or distortion.
Let me assure everybody that they are pretty well perfect,as they would be!
As for conducting speeds ,there were no limitations on tape of course. The stop-go affair that you describe was that used making 78 rpm shellac records pre tape.

Lastly,re: very modern recordings, I can't imagine any conductor now alive who I could be bothered with --old recordings don't bother me I'm busy listening to the music itself.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

In the US, Columbia mastered to long playing high fidelity masters during the immediate post war years. They were still recorded five minutes at a time, and were dubbed to 78s for release. When the LP record debuted, many of the first releases were these recordings, issued in high fidelity for the first time.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Also, I did a transfer of Walter's first act of Die Walkure from the mid 30s that has fantastic sound. When major recordings were issued, they would do special pressings marked with a Z that had much better sound quality than the average disks.

The earliest electrical recordings in the late 20s had no equalization. The cutting heads put frequencies on the records that no phonograph at the time was capable of reproducing. Later on they chopped those frequencies off to prevent premature record wear.


----------

