# Explain fascination with Toscanini



## Brahmsianhorn

He's been dead for over a half century, and yet his recordings are still played over and over by tons of devoted fans in lieu of newer better sounding ones. What is it about his performances that still captivate us today?

And his influence on music performance is unparalleled. Conductors of the past were engaging in silly imaginary theories like Schenkerian analysis, but then Toscanini came along and said "Allegro con brio means allegro con brio," and our heads exploded. What was so uniquely brilliant about Toscanini's theories on music? I would love to learn more.


----------



## mbhaub

I knew a clarinetist who played under Toscanini many times in the NY Phil and NBC Orchestra days. There were many times we'd sit on his patio and I'd just probe his mind and let him talk about the old days in New York. Of Toscanini he said, "what a *******". But what an incredible talented one! For him, Toscanini had a certain magnetism and charisma that was irresistible. In his 50 years playing in orchestras he never had any conductor who conveyed exactly what he wanted with such a clean, clear and precise baton. Toscanini wasn't fussy and worrying about minute details wasn't his thing: the big picture, the architecture was, but the emotional aspect of the music was utterly the most important - cantabile! he would scream. He had an intuitive feel for tempo, when to move it forward, when to pull back. No doubt his training in the opera pit helped that happen. Like most of the great conductors of the Golden Era, he didn't to conduct taking classes - he had role models.

Personally, I find a lot of Toscanini too hard driven, but when he's good it's really profoundly good. The BBC Brahms symphonies are just extraordinary in their power. He wisely stayed away from music he had little affection for. Tchaikovsky symphonies 1-5 weren't to his taste, but the 6th is incendiary. The Manfred a surprising choice. The Respighi Roman Trilogy is thrilling - even with the dire mono sound. There are several good biographies of Toscanini, the Horowitz my favorite.


----------



## Fabulin

While I don't find his tempi choices optimal, the precision and cohesion he could get from ensembles was incredible for the early 20th century, and indeed can be seen as a venerable standard even today.

It alone can already amount to a great experience of a Toscanini recording.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I love his 1941 Tchaikovsky 6th. That's maybe my favorite Toscanini recording.


----------



## DavidA

Of course he was a tremendously important and influential conductor on that he actually made the musicians play everything properly. He is also important because of his links with Verdi, Puccini et al. So his Italian operatic recordings have a unique authority, not that they should be taken as the only way of doing them. Unfortunately the recordings are not all they might be recorded in the dry Studio 8-H which makes him sound far more dry and inflexible than he actually was. To get a good idea of his genius the 1936 beethoven 7th is a good one being better recorded than the 1950s NBC.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I’ve learned to appreciate his style, but I don’t necessarily hear anything in any Toscanini recording that I can’t hear in better sound done by any of his “objectivist” disciples, especially Reiner, where the same sort of effect can be heard in amazing Living Stereo sound and with a much more vivid, full-bodied orchestra. At his best he did have a sort of fluid, unforced lyricism that can be compelling though this is largely diminished in the late recordings. At his worst I find him unbearably cold and analytical. One recording which I do think is unlikely to be topped is the Verdi Requiem from the early ’50’s. The power and devotion is staggering.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Have you heard De Sabata's Verdi Requiem? Every bit as exciting as Toscanini but more artistically nuanced.


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I've learned to appreciate his style, but I don't necessarily hear anything in any Toscanini recording that I can't hear in better sound done by any of his "objectivist" disciples, especially Reiner, where the same sort of effect can be heard in amazing Living Stereo sound and with a much more vivid, full-bodied orchestra. At his best he did have a sort of fluid, unforced lyricism that can be compelling though this is largely diminished in the late recordings. At his worst I find him unbearably cold and analytical. *One recording which I do think is unlikely to be topped is the Verdi Requiem from the early '50's. The power and devotion is staggering.[/Q*UOTE]
> 
> The requiem, Otello, Falstaff are all benchmarks. Not necessarily the best in terms of cast but they come from the man who knew a Verdi and played under him. Incidentally Reiner's Reqyiem is quite unlike Toscanini's.


----------



## Merl

As other conductors I admire some of his performances (especially the live Brahms cycle) in repertoire I like but otherwise its all been done better in much superior sound. But hey, each to their own.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you heard De Sabata's Verdi Requiem? Every bit as exciting as Toscanini but more artistically nuanced.


I think I remember sampling it once but finding the sound almost unbearably bad and distorted. It's not a favorite work of mine, but I'll revisit it soon.


----------



## Fabulin

It wouldn't be controversial to call him one of the 3 greatest conductors of his (let's say 1850-1875) generation, would it?

Together with Nikisch and Mahler.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

I think I'm not a sort of Toscanini fan. I usually prefer newer recordings but what I appreciate is his Beethoven set. It's really special, it's maybe the most energetic Beethoven of all time. Very fast tempos, dramatic style and a passion for every measure. I like his 9th but I'm absolutely captivated in his performance of all four "lighter" symphonies - The First and Second have a lot of lightness and musicality but only a few modern recordings can match the joyous energy of the Fourth and Eighth. Maybe his tempos are too fast, as if he didn't let the listener breathe, but I'm sometimes in a mood not to breath, just to follow his Beethoven...


----------



## mbhaub

Fabulin said:


> It wouldn't be controversial to call him one of the 3 greatest conductors of his (let's say 1850-1875) generation, would it?
> 
> Together with Nikisch and Mahler.


When it comes to the 20th c, for many people - critics, musicians, listeners - and pretty much by consensus, the three titans of the podium were Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Stokowski. It would be interesting to see in another 50 years if those names still hold up.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

mbhaub said:


> When it comes to the 20th c, for many people - critics, musicians, listeners - and pretty much by consensus, the three titans of the podium were Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Stokowski. It would be interesting to see in another 50 years if those names still hold up.


I agree personally with putting Stoky up there, but I'm not sure most see it that way. My impression has always been that the general consensus view is Toscanini/Furtwängler in the first half of the century and Karajan/Bernstein in the second half.


----------



## Xisten267

DaddyGeorge said:


> I think I'm not a sort of Toscanini fan. I usually prefer newer recordings but what I appreciate is his Beethoven set. It's really special, it's maybe the most energetic Beethoven of all time. Very fast tempos, dramatic style and a passion for every measure. I like his 9th but I'm absolutely captivated in his performance of all four "lighter" symphonies - The First and Second have a lot of lightness and musicality but only a few modern recordings can match the joyous energy of the Fourth and Eighth. *Maybe his tempos are too fast, as if he didn't let the listener breathe, but I'm sometimes in a mood not to breath, just to follow his Beethoven...*


Toscanini follows the composer's tempo indications rigorously. I think that some other conductors pre-HIP slow down Beethoven too much.


----------



## Fabulin

mbhaub said:


> When it comes to the 20th c, for many people - critics, musicians, listeners - and pretty much by consensus, the three titans of the podium were Toscanini, Furtwangler, and Stokowski. It would be interesting to see in another 50 years if those names still hold up.


But Stokowski was born in 1882, and Furtwängler in 1886! That's one generation later than Toscanini :tiphat:


----------



## JAS

Fabulin said:


> But Stokowski was born in 1882, and Furtwängler in 1886! That's one generation later than Toscanini :tiphat:


Four years would be a very short generation. I generally think of a generation as being about 21 years, 20 if you want a more mathematical convenience.


----------



## Fabulin

JAS said:


> Four years would be a very short generation. I generally think of a generation as being about 21 years, 20 if you want a more mathematical convenience.


1850-1875 vs 1875-1900? With Nikisch 1855, Mahler 1860, and Toscanini 1867 against Stokowski 1882 and Furtwängler 1886?

What four years?


----------



## JAS

1886-1882 = 4 years

But I see you meant a generation for Toscanini. My hasty misreading.


----------



## StevenOBrien

mbhaub said:


> I knew a clarinetist who played under Toscanini many times in the NY Phil and NBC Orchestra days. There were many times we'd sit on his patio and I'd just probe his mind and let him talk about the old days in New York. Of Toscanini he said, "what a *******".


Yup


----------



## MarkW

His 1949 Carnegie Hall Eroica was about the third recording I owned (a gift from my sister when I was eleven) and it remains my go-to performance. Once I was curious how he got the funeral march so intense -- especially at the end, where in my head I put in all sorts of unnecessary rubato and ritards. So I played it once with the score in front of me -- and discovered that my imaginings were all wrong, that he followed the score pretty exactly, still got the effect that left one shattered -- and caused me to appreciate both Toscanini and Beethoven all the more.


----------



## aioriacont

Toscanini should have gotten a punch in the face from that bass player. Nothing justifies abuse.


----------



## KenOC

From a 2013 post:
----------------------------
That sweat-drenched face was bearing down upon us like the archangel of vengeance himself as we almost disemboweled ourselves with feverish effort. Then suddenly, a spine-chilling wail: "Pi-a-a-a-n-o-o! Bassi! Contrabassi! You grunt away like pigs! You sound as if you were scratching your bellies -- szshrump! szshrump!" he would bellow, while, tearing at his clothes, he viciously pantomined the scratching. "Corpo del vostro Dio! PI-A-A-NO!"

"But Maestro," a player would sometimes protest in a small, hesitant, and resentful voice. "My part is printed 'forte.' " "What you say?" the Old Man would growl menacingly, unbelievingly, distracted for the moment from his tirade. "It says 'forte,' " the player would reply, this time in an even smaller, more apologetic voice.

"What? Forte? FORTE?" with an air of incredulity. "What means 'forte'? Ignorante! Is a stupid word -- as stupid as you! Is a thousand fortes--all kinds of fortes. Sometimes forte is pia-a-a-no, piano is forte! Accidenti! [Damn it!] You call yourself a musician? O, per Dio santissimo! You play here in THIS orchestra? In a village cafe house you belong! You don't listen to what others play. Your nose in the music -- szshrump! szshrump! You hear nothing! You cover up the oboe solo! One poor oboe -- one! -- and you szshrump! szshrump! Where are your ears? Look at me! Contra-ba-a-ss-i!" in a long, drawn-out wail. "Tutti! Tutti! Vergogna! [Shame!]"

-- from Samuel Antek, "This Was Toscanini", 1963


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

KenOC said:


> From a 2013 post:
> ----------------------------
> That sweat-drenched face was bearing down upon us like the archangel of vengeance himself as we almost disemboweled ourselves with feverish effort. Then suddenly, a spine-chilling wail: "Pi-a-a-a-n-o-o! Bassi! Contrabassi! You grunt away like pigs! You sound as if you were scratching your bellies -- szshrump! szshrump!" he would bellow, *while, tearing at his clothes*, he viciously pantomined the scratching. "Corpo del vostro Dio! PI-A-A-NO!"


You see? Toscanini and I aren't so different after all


----------



## hammeredklavier

Since Brahmsianhorn hasn't arranged for this to be on standby, I'll do it:









Next up: "Explain fascistnation with Karajan"..?


----------



## annaw

hammeredklavier said:


> Since Brahmsianhorn hasn't arranged for this to be on standby, I'll do it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next up: "Explain fascistnation with Karajan"..?


I think the perfect thread would be something like: "Explain fascination with Karajan, Furtwängler and Wagner" What a bomb that thread would be :lol: !


----------



## hammeredklavier

annaw said:


> I think the perfect thread would be something like: "Explain fascination with Karajan, Furtwängler and Wagner" What a bomb that thread would be :lol: !


Then we would need something like this to extinguish the resulting hurricane of fire.

*[ 5:38 ]*


----------



## aioriacont

I'm not at all fascinated by Toscanini. Not only due to his awful attitudes towards players, but simply because we have alive much more talented and decent conductors. Masaaki Suzuki and John Gardiner are true geniuses!
They are strong Bach conoisseurs, mainly Suzuki, but are also amazing conducting other composers. Check Gardiner's symphony cycle, which aims for the composer's real tempo intentions. Toscanini paid attention to that also, being indeed revolutionary at the time for considering Beethoven's tempi at the symphonies, but Gardiner perfected it! And he does not need to say such horrible things to his musicians. Suzuki perfects everything he touches, he is very precise in his approach, also managing to deliver the composer's feelings, as in his Bach's passions, masses, cantatas, harpsichord, organ and orchestral works. I love that!


----------



## BachIsBest

KenOC said:


> Sometimes forte is pia-a-a-no, piano is forte!


It _is_ a little known fact that no only was Toscanini one of the first to adopt historical tempo indications but he also favoured performances on original fortepianos. Thanks for sharing this enlightening quote!


----------



## Animal the Drummer

aioriacont said:


> I'm not at all fascinated by Toscanini. Not only due to his awful attitudes towards players, but simply because we have alive much more talented and decent conductors. Masaaki Suzuki and John Gardiner are true geniuses!
> They are strong Bach conoisseurs, mainly Suzuki, but are also amazing conducting other composers. Check Gardiner's symphony cycle, which aims for the composer's real tempo intentions. Toscanini paid attention to that also, being indeed revolutionary at the time for considering Beethoven's tempi at the symphonies, but Gardiner perfected it! And he does not need to say such horrible things to his musicians. Suzuki perfects everything he touches, he is very precise in his approach, also managing to deliver the composer's feelings, as in his Bach's passions, masses, cantatas, harpsichord, organ and orchestral works. I love that!


Gardiner can be pretty unpleasant to his performers too, perhaps not quite as extreme as Toscanini but don't go thinking of Gardiner as some kind of teddy bear. I know someone who's played for him and can't stand him, and (according to her anyway) she's far from being the only one.


----------



## Enthusiast

Toscanini was great, Furtwangler was great, others of their time were great. Some of their recordings are indispensable (to me) but music didn't stop with their generation or the next one. Great conductors and great performances - whether 75 years old or 5 - are unique and irreplaceable. I don't get those who are obsessed with "only the old" ("no-one understood his music as wel as ...") or "never the old" ("it's all been bettered since"). 

I do get a preference for good modern sound but it is surprising how easily (less than 5 minutes) your ear can adapt and accept limited sound and I wonder how many of those who reject old sound have really tried. Great performances break through sonic shortcomings. Just listen to the awful recordings of Toscanini doing the Brahms symphonies in London with the Philharmonia or Vaughan Williams' own recording of his 4th symphony. I guess, though, there is a problem in that there are too many recordings of the greats of the past. Their names sell. It is not easy to find the really good ones among the quite good ones. And then there is remastering: for the great recordings it is often not easy to find which recordings have been well remastered. They often change labels.


----------



## JAS

I am just waiting for the "Explain fascination with Hans von Bülow" thread, even though it is likely to be hindered by the lack of recordings. (Such minor quibbles rarely stop us at TC)


----------



## annaw

JAS said:


> I am just waiting for the "Explain fascination with Hans von Bülow" thread, even though it is likely to be hindered by the lack of recordings. (Such minor quibbles rarely stop us at TC)


I'm afraid it won't be necessarily hindered thanks to non-musical aspects of Hans von Bülow's life .


----------



## wkasimer

mbhaub said:


> Personally, I find a lot of Toscanini too hard driven, but when he's good it's really profoundly good. The BBC Brahms symphonies are just extraordinary in their power.


I haven't heard these BBC recordings, but have lately been enjoying his live recordings of the Brahms with the Philharmonia - how are the BBC recordings different?


----------



## ribonucleic

I like the observation that his orchestras' playing "was borne of terror rather than conviction".


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> I am just waiting for the "Explain fascination with Hans von Bülow" thread,....


I await the "Explain the fascination with Konwitschny (Swarovski, Hollreiser, Leinsdorf, Bongartz, etc)" thread...lol!!


----------



## Heck148

ribonucleic said:


> I like the observation that his orchestras' playing "was borne of terror rather than conviction".


Toscanini's approach was not that unique during that period....Maestros held complete power over their orchestras....for all of his volcanic eruptions of temper, Toscanini was not generally given to immediate dismissal...some others were much worse - ie - Rodzinski, Reiner, Stokowski, Szell to name a few.


----------



## larold

Toscanini was the greatest force for change in classical music direction/playing in the 20th century. Without him there would never have been a revival of authenticism in either the 1950s or the 1980s. Without him there may never have been the period practice performance movement we now take for granted in classical music.

Toscanini was born in a time when conductors did anything they wanted with scores -- ignore them or their directions, massively cut them, or as Stokowski was famous for doing, rewrite them. Toscanini was the force beginning in the 1930s to change this and see the score, if not sacrosanct, as a living document of what the music was supposed to become.

In other words for hundreds of years conductors viewed scores as suggestions. After Toscanini conductors saw them as road maps: if you do not follow them as they are printed/stated you won't arrive at the proper destination.

An Italian, Toscanini left Italy before Mussolini's totalitarianism and was a noted opponent of Nazism. He recorded most Puccini operas in collaboration with the composer. He was the first to play in concert and record Shostakovich's 7th symphony after it created a sensation in 1941.

He was the most revered conductor in the world in his day and for many years after. 

The Toscanini we know from recordings is in the main the late life conductor of the NBC Symphony Orchestra. What he was in the 1920s and what his ways sounded like before the war is still pretty much a mystery to most living CM fans.

Here's what David Ewen wrote about Toscanini the man in his 1978 book "Musicians Since 1900":

"Away from music Toscanini was profoundly interested in literature and painting. He could quote Shakespeare by the page and was thoroughly familar with the works of Goethe. He never smoked, rarely drank ... and never participated in games of chance. His diet was Spartan, often just soup and bread. He took delight in many trivial things such as playing pranks on friends, toying with gadgets, and watching prizefights on television. Superstitious, he went through a number of minor rituals before going on the concert stage -- kissing a small crucifix or taking a look at portraits of great musical masters. He felt the letter W was lucky for him (the reason) his three children have names beginning with that letter."

There has not been another composer, conductor or player since he died 1954 with as much influence over the whole of classical music. He was the most influential force of the last century with only Schoenberg coming in a distant second place. If that is not enough to retain fascination with him -- especially when people remain fascinated with people who did much less -- I don't know what is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

So Toscanini is solely to blame for the stale quality of music today? I'm not the biggest fan of his, but even I would not go that far.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> So Toscanini is solely to blame for the stale quality of music today?


Leading question, based upon a faulty assumption not in evidence.


----------



## chill782002

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini's approach was not that unique during that period....Maestros held complete power over there orchestras....for all of his volcanic eruptions of temper, Toscanini was not generally given to immediate dismissal...some others were much worse - ie - Rodzinski, Reiner, Stokowski, Szell to name a few.


Agreed, Rodzinski's rants apparently left Toscanini's in the shade and, as you say, he was known for dismissing players on the spot. One of the main reasons for his resignation as conductor of the New York Philharmonic in 1947 was allegedly the fact that he was told by the board of directors that this was not on.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Favorite Toscanini recordings:

Beethoven 3rd, 1939
Beethoven 5th, 1933
Beethoven 7th, 1936
Beethoven 9th, 1938
Beethoven, Missa Solemnis, 1940
Brahms 1st, 1941
Brahms 4th, 1935
Cherubini, Symphony, Overtures
Puccini, La boheme, studio RCA
Respighi, Tone poems
Rossini, Overtures
Schumann 3rd, 1949
Shostakovich 7th
Tchaikovsky 6th, 1941
Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1 , 1943 w/Horowitz
Verdi, Requiem, 1940
Verdi, Falstaff, studio RCA
Verdi, Otello, studio RCA


----------



## larold

_So Toscanini is solely to blame for the stale quality of music today? I'm not the biggest fan of his, but even I would not go that far._

I would say he was solely responsible for changing music toward a fidelity to the score. That led to the literalism movement after World War II which later morphed into the current PPP.

Keep in mind the first authentic movement came in the 1950s when people started playing Baroque music on proper instruments and with more right-sized orchestras. It didn't ruin the sound of the music because of speed or sour tuning like PPP has.


----------



## larold

My favorite Toscanini recording is the Mendelssohn "Reformation" symphony. He makes the music monumental, far greater than it actually is. Anyone that thinks Toscanini was always too fast or too abrupt or too anything else should hear the leisurely speeds and elasticity in that recording.


----------



## larold

_Have you heard De Sabata's Verdi Requiem? Every bit as exciting as Toscanini but more artistically nuanced._

He was a great of the period and a foil to Toscanini -- a humanist in the Bruno Walter mold. I have always enjoyed his Roman trilogy more than Toscanini's or just about anyone else.

I listened to his LP of Fountains of Rome and Debussy's Jeux for years before trying others.


----------



## Fabulin

Fun fact: in the 1930s Toscanini was the highest salaried musician in the world.


----------



## larold

He is also the most recorded conductor in history, ahead of Karajan and everyone else, in part because he was the king of the 78 era when it took 5 or 6 of them to record Eroica.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Perhaps the best way to get a taste of Toscanini's conducting is to listen to an album called "Toscanini Conducts Wagner," which I think was his last commercial recording. It's actually recorded in stereo (!!!) in 1954, making it the only opportunity to hear his approach in quasi-modern sound. It's quite a fascinating document: http://www.classicalnotes.net/reviews/toscanini_last.html


----------



## DavidA

Just listening to Toscanini conducting Beethoven 7 with NYPO in 1936

This is legendary. Incendiary. Amazing. To hear the great man at his best listen to this.


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Incendiary


is exactly what we need for this thread, compared to the other one which is on total fire


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Perhaps the best way to get a taste of Toscanini's conducting is to listen to an album called "Toscanini Conducts Wagner,"


Toscanini was a great Wagner conductor. Really got into it....his exquisite attention to orchestra detail, balance, ensemble, combined with his unerring sense of drama, ebb and flow, are remarkable...so many great takes - but one is esp noteworthy - Tristan &Isolde, P & L.... amazing....he reigns supreme, in face of fierce competition: Reiner x2, Solti x 2, Rodzinski, Furtwangler - all wonderful renditions, but AT takes the prize....stunning orchestra control, flexibility of the phrasing in the strings, perfectly timed climax....Toscanini, like most of my other favorite conductors [Reiner, Solti, Monteux) had the ability to execute, address the details, the control, yet still bring forth the long lines, the drama, the ebb and flow, the "big picture", with stunning effectiveness.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini was a great Wagner conductor. Really got into it....his exquisite attention to orchestra detail, balance, ensemble, combined with his unerring sense of drama, ebb and flow, are remarkable...so many great takes - but one is esp noteworthy - Tristan &Isolde, P & L.... amazing....he reigns supreme, in face of fierce competition: Reiner x2, Solti x 2, Rodzinski, Furtwangler - all wonderful renditions, but AT takes the prize....stunning orchestra control, flexibility of the phrasing in the strings, perfectly timed climax....Toscanini, like most of my other favorite conductors [Reiner, Solti, Monteux) had the ability to execute, address the details, the control, yet still bring forth the long lines, the drama, the ebb and flow, the "big picture", with stunning effectiveness.


NBC opera recordings did not capture the full power of Toscanini at his prime because in his later years he suffered hearing problems. His Verdi recordings during 50s are not as tight.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> NBC opera recordings did not capture the full power of Toscanini at his prime because in his later years he suffered hearing problems. *His Verdi recordings during 50s are not as tight.*


'Not as tight'? I can't imagine anything 'tighter' than the Otello (1947) and the Falstaff (1950). Piano rehearsals for the cast of Falstaff averaged six hours a day for a period of six weeks. That preparation is certainly evident in a performance that crackles with fire, precision, and nuance from the boisterous opening measures to the concluding fugue. Cast is not perfect but the performance is a benchmark and probably only Karajan and Bernstein get near it in conducting terms.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini was a great Wagner conductor. Really got into it....his exquisite attention to orchestra detail, balance, ensemble, combined with his unerring sense of drama, ebb and flow, are remarkable...so many great takes - but one is esp noteworthy - Tristan &Isolde, P & L.... amazing....he reigns supreme, in face of fierce competition: Reiner x2, Solti x 2, Rodzinski, Furtwangler - all wonderful renditions, but AT takes the prize....stunning orchestra control, flexibility of the phrasing in the strings, perfectly timed climax....Toscanini, like most of my other favorite conductors [Reiner, Solti, Monteux) had the ability to execute, address the details, the control, yet still bring forth the long lines, the drama, the ebb and flow, the "big picture", with stunning effectiveness.


So I just listened with interest to Toscanini's RCA T & I: P & L. First off I have to discuss the climax of the Liebestod, one of the most orgasmic in all of classical music which by definition a conductor has to bring off to be successful. AT's fell flat. Just barreled straight through it. Not exactly metronomic, but pretty darned close. The truly great recordings leave you feeling, well, orgasmic. This one does not. Beyond that I found the whole performance perfectly balanced, perfectly musical, and perfectly...boring.

Which leads to my question: Why is this so often my personal reaction to Toscanini/Reiner/Solti? Well, when I reviewed the Furtwängler Bruckner 7 Adagio the other day, you quoted my words and applied them to Solti, but you also added the word "clear" about 2 or 3 times.

I think this is the issue. I see these conductors as being direct and clear. Everything proceeds according to script. What I am missing is artistic mystery, what I suppose you would call "adding things." A feeling of spontaneity where you don't feel like you know exactly what is coming next.

Karajan was obviously a conductor who believed in the art of concealment. I mean he never opened his eyes! But he was excellent at creating a feeling of mystery, at times quite seductively so. The only problem for me is that even at times when the music should open up it never completely does. With Furtwängler I feel we get the best of both, we get artful mystery when it is required, but he also lets the lid come off the pot when that is needed.

Anyways, point is the Toscanini types are too obvious, clear, and direct for my taste. You've made it sound in prior posts like Furtwängler didn't know how to conduct clearly. He didn't want to, and for me that works better. I believe in artful concealment when the music calls for it. Maybe it's because people like me often see the gray in everything that we like interpretations that are more "smudgy."


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> NBC opera recordings did not capture the full power of Toscanini at his prime because in his later years he suffered hearing problems. His Verdi recordings during 50s are not as tight.


I find his Verdi quite riveting - very tight, exciting, dramatic.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Which lea.
> 
> Karajan was obviously a conductor who believed in the art of concealment. I mean he never opened his eyes! But he was excellent at creating a feeling of mystery, at times quite seductively so. The only problem for me is that even at times when the music should open up it never completely does. With Furtwängler I feel we get the best of both, we get artful mystery when it is required, but he also lets the lid come off the pot when that is needed.
> 
> ."


Don't believe everything you read! Karajan didn't conduct opera with his eyes shut. He did occasionally go into a trance like state at Bayreuth during a Tristan though


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Anyways, point is the Toscanini types are too obvious, clear, and direct for my taste. You've made it sound in prior posts like Furtwängler didn't know how to conduct clearly. He didn't want to, and for me that works better. I believe in artful concealment when the music calls for it. Maybe it's because people like me often see the gray in everything that we like interpretations that are more "smudgy."


This is a fair assessment. I do think Toscanini's Wagner is exciting and wonderfully executed, but the style is not Wagnerian. There are plenty of Wagner's writings and accounts that describe Wagner's way of conducting (and his close relation with Hans von Bulow and Liszt). Wagner's music is also thematically complex, grandiose, excessive, and hysterical so to maintain control while demonstrating these characteristics is difficult. Delving into the Ring one quickly finds that Wanger is a music philosopher (also his close relationship with Nietzsche and admiration to Feuerbach). It is fair to say that Toscanini takes the direct approach but not the intellectual approach, which is ultimately unsatisfactory for Wagnerians who are looking for more.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a fair assessment. I do think Toscanini's Wagner is exciting and wonderfully executed, but the style is not Wagnerian. There are plenty of Wagner's writings and accounts that describe Wagner's way of conducting (and his close relation with Hans von Bulow and Liszt). Wagner's music is also thematically complex, grandiose, excessive, and hysterical so to maintain control while demonstrating these characteristics is difficult. Delving into the Ring one quickly finds that Wanger is a music philosopher (also his close relationship with Nietzsche and admiration to Feuerbach). It is fair to say that Toscanini takes the direct approach but not the intellectual approach, which is ultimately unsatisfactory for Wagnerians who are looking for more.


So who is Wagnerian? Who you and BH nominate?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So I just listened with interest to Toscanini's RCA T & I: P & L. First off I have to discuss the climax of the Liebestod, one of the most orgasmic in all of classical music which by definition a conductor has to bring off to be successful.


And Toscanini/NBC [1/52, Carnegie Hall] is the most perfect orgasmic climax I've ever heard in this work....really stunning!!



> AT's fell flat. Just barreled straight through it.


You're nuts, totally wrong, he keeps it moving, with wonderful flexibility - and the _subito piano sans ritardando_ is remarkable!! great orchestral control....bulls-eyes the climax...unbelievable!! 


> The truly great recordings leave you feeling, well, orgasmic.


Right, and Solti's, Reiner's, Rodzinski's and Furtwangler's all achieve this, tho Toscanini does it best.



> This one does not.


See your Doctor about getting some Viagra!!



> Which leads to my question: Why is this so often my personal reaction to Toscanini/Reiner/Solti?


Because you are deaf?? because you don't know great performances when you hear them??  No, really [pardon my snideness, if you will]- I think you arbitrarily apply add-ons to the music which you find pleasing, but to others are non-existent and/or superfluous and irrelevant. If it enhances your enjoyment of music, great, that's wonderful. but to others, like myself, these add-ons mean little or nothing.
I don't respond to adding things like <<extra-musical, metaphysical spirits, objective "truths" to be apprehended by the performer or listener.>> 
That has little or no meaning to me whatsoever. I'm interested in the sound that reaches my ears - where "the rubber meets the road" so to speak.
[I do agree with you about Karajan...]

Let me put it this way - I was a workaday musician for some 50 years....for many years I played well over 200 services per year - which meant long hours "in the trenches". I also served as an adjudicator, and as contractor/personnel manager, I heard hundreds of auditions of aspiring orchestra musicians....
the following scenarios would simply NOT ever happen in the professional world:

1. candidate A comes in for audition, plays extremely well on Brahms Sym #3, great sound, good intonation, sensitive, artistic phrasing, exquisite playing - committee member says "yes, very good candidate, but Mr A simply does not capture the _over-riding spirit, the metaphysical truth_ of the Brahms Symphony, so my vote is no!!" Rest of committee rolls eyes in frustration,  calls for ambulance to take member to funny farm.

2. candidate B comes in for audition - tries to play opening of "Rite of Spring" - has trouble - rhythmically inaccurate, misses lots of high notes, Ds don't speak, intonation is shaky....committee member says "well, there were some technical issues, but this musician clearly captures _the essential spirit, the esoteric truth_ of "Le Sacre" - good candidate - yes!" Again, other committee members roll eyes in amazement,  again call for psychiatric assistance.

3. High school students are auditioning for All-State orchestra positions - oboist Jennifer Jones comes in - plays beautifully - has lovely sound, clean technique, expressive phrasing, sensitive to style, etc....obvious candidate for first Chair Oboe - Adjudicator rejects her, tho, because in his opinion, Ms Jones simply doesn't comprehend the _extra-musical, metaphysical spirit, truth and meaning_ of the Marcello Oboe Concerto.....event organizers take adjudicator out and shoot him.

What I'm saying is - where the "rubber meets the road" - what sounds reach my ear, what is actually being played, is what I go by. I'm not interested in some over-riding spiritual, mystical "meaning" that is to be apprehended. When I'm on my 12th straight day of playing concerts/rehearsals non-stop, and Beethoven Sym #4 is on the stand, I'm tired, exhausted, concentration is failing, the last thing I'm concerned about is "communing with the metaphysical meaning" of LvB #4!! Oh, I'll play the part, expressively as possible, as accurately as possible - if I don't commune with the "mystical spirit", so be it!!

I don't want to bring this thread into YET Another karajan /furtwangler episode [the other thread has gone on for some 1400 posts, hundreds of pages]...no thanx....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It is fair to say that Toscanini takes the direct approach but not the intellectual approach, which is ultimately unsatisfactory for Wagnerians who are looking for more.


Preeeecisely, which is also the issue in his Beethoven.

But in music with dancing rhythms like Rossini, sure I'll take Toscanini all day. But even in Italian opera I still prefer De Sabata for his greater depth. Take for example his Verdi Requiem, so much more artful than Toscanini's but yielding nothing in excitement.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> I find his Verdi quite riveting - very tight, exciting, dramatic.


Not rhythmic control, but overall control of orchestra is not tight as his earlier recordings to my ears. Try for example, his 37 Salzburg Falstaff (he was already 70) or 46 NBC La Traviata.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a fair assessment. I do think Toscanini's Wagner is exciting and wonderfully executed, but the style is not Wagnerian.


Actually, I find it extremely "Wagnerian"....I find the non-Teutonics to be generally much better Wagner conductors, at least for my taste....Toscanini, Reiner, Solti - wonderful Wagner, Barenboim and Stokowski are very good, also. the Germans get too ponderous, too heavy, portentous even. it gets bogged down and logy.
That's my preference anyway....again, I'm not that interested in all of the metaphysical, extra-musical baggage that seems to accompany these discussions

There are plenty of Wagner's writings and accounts that describe Wagner's way of conducting (and his close relation with Hans von Bulow and Liszt). Wagner's music is also thematically complex, grandiose, excessive, and hysterical so to maintain control while demonstrating these characteristics is difficult. Delving into the Ring one quickly finds that Wanger is a music philosopher (also his close relationship with Nietzsche and admiration to Feuerbach). It is fair to say that Toscanini takes the direct approach but not the intellectual approach, which is ultimately unsatisfactory for Wagnerians who are looking for more.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I don't want to bring this thread into YET Another karajan /furtwangler episode [the other thread has gone on for some 1400 posts, hundreds of pages]...no thanx....


Well, in Furtwanglerland we enjoy continuing discussion because we know truth is never fully reached, but I can see why you want to truncate discussion over here. The entire philosophy is about truncating thought for the purpose of efficiency. Thanks for demonstrating that with your "in the trenches" description of what "real" musicians care about.

Interesting, I just posted the other day Furtwangler's 1953 VPO Beethoven 9th. It is one of his best. But what is truly amazing is that it was the 2nd performance of the great work that day after having performed it the night before! And yet amazingly it sounded fresh and different from the night before. Furtwangler DESPISED routine and DESPISED cold efficiency. Every performance was a new discovery.

America is known for it's ruthless efficiency. That is probably why we did not receive Furtwangler well in the 1920s, and the feeling was mutual. So wrote Furtwangler:

"I had to consider seriously the question of whether there is any sense for me to concertize in a country that meets me with such a lack of comprehension. This question has been answered - as far as I am concerned - in a negative sense, long ago."

So your scenario of American auditions would not surprise me. We sadly don't get it. I've experienced that ad nauseum as a practicing musician in this country the past few decades.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I'm not that interested in all of the metaphysical, extra-musical baggage that seems to accompany these discussions


It's not "extra-musical" if it is inherent in the music itself. Not everything has the simplicity and straight-forwardness of John Philip Sousa.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Preeeecisely, which is also the issue in his Beethoven.
> 
> But in music with dancing rhythms like Rossini, sure I'll take Toscanini all day. But even in Italian opera I still prefer De Sabata for his greater depth. Take for example his Verdi Requiem, so much more artful than Toscanini's but yielding nothing in excitement.


I too prefer De Sabata's Verdi requiem to Toscanini. It ultimately comes down to understanding the role of "extra-musical" stuff in music. Wagner has this idea of opera as Gesamtkunstwerk, a synthesis of arts means that you cannot treat the "extra-musical" stuff separately. Beethoven's music is also deeply philosophical (most famously demonstrated in the Fifth, the dialectic of major and minor keys leading to an exalted synthesis). The Hegelian aspect of Beethoven's work is not only apparent but essential for a deeper understanding. In the German tradition, I don't think you can take things at face value.

Also for german's school of music/pianism, there is a big emphasis on the harmonic progression. The perceived speed/tempo or drama is also affected by how fast harmony changes during the music. If the harmony is static then even a faster tempo may sound slow, and if the harmony is changing a lot then even a slower tempo may sound fast. Therefore, just focusing on keeping tempo straight may not be the "correct" approach to German music in this sense.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, in Furtwanglerland we enjoy continuing discussion because we know truth is never fully reached, but I can see why you want to truncate discussion over here. The entire philosophy is about truncating thought for the purpose of efficiency.


Has nothing to do with efficiency. It has to do with what we actually here. not what we imagine to exist.
Again - 
Toscanini - regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"

"To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."
Arturo Toscanini


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I too prefer De Sabata's Verdi requiem to Toscanini. It ultimately comes down to understanding the role of "extra-musical" stuff in music. Wagner has this idea of opera as Gesamtkunstwerk, a synthesis of arts means that you cannot treat the "extra-musical" stuff separately. Beethoven's music is also deeply philosophical (most famously demonstrated in the Fifth, the dialectic of major and minor keys leading to an exalted synthesis). The Hegelian aspect of Beethoven's work is not only apparent but essential for a deeper understanding. In the German tradition, I don't think you can take things at face value.
> 
> Also for german's school of music/pianism, there is a big emphasis on the harmonic progression. The perceived speed/tempo or drama is also affected by how fast harmony changes during the music. If the harmony is static then even a faster tempo may sound slow, and if the harmony is changing a lot then even a slower tempo may sound fast. Therefore, just focusing on keeping tempo straight may not be the "correct" approach to German music in this sense.


What exactly do you mean by extra-musical? Words and libretto, the meaning composer wanted to convey?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not "extra-musical" if it is inherent in the music itself.


so you imagine....


> Not everything has the simplicity and straight-forwardness of John Philip Sousa.


JP Sousa expresses great metaphysical, objective truths and symbolism in his works!! 

Please, if this is _furtwangler/philosophy marathon II_ - count me out....if you want to argue over how many 16th notes will fit on the end of a pin, go for it.....no thanx for me.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> What exactly do you mean by extra-musical? Words and libretto, the meaning composer wanted to convey?


I was responding to Heck148's aversion to bringing in "extra-musical" stuff to music. I think interpretation must be "extra-musical" in nature and extrapolations should not be treated as something separate from the music but connected to music.

In a way, words and libretto are "extra-musical" in this view. That's why, to my understanding, Beethoven spent 8 symphonies and 3 movements to make a big statement about the limit of "pure-music" because "pure-music" is insufficient to speak for itself, he has to make the statement unambiguous.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Has nothing to do with efficiency. It has to do with what we actually here. *not what we imagine to exist.*
> Again -
> Toscanini - regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"
> 
> "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."
> Arturo Toscanini


Such a ridiculous statement. How can so many people be imagining they hear the same thing? Just because you personally don't hear it? That's myopia.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> Actually, I find it extremely "Wagnerian"....I find the non-Teutonics to be generally much better Wagner conductors, at least for my taste....Toscanini, Reiner, Solti - wonderful Wagner, Barenboim and Stokowski are very good.


The German tradition is understood by people all over the world. Surely not everyone's cup of tea. But to suggest this has something to do with being "Teutonic" (an ethnic) raises eyebrows.

Also Barenboim, being a big admirer of Furtwangler (premiered his lackluster Piano concerto), clearly went full German when it comes to the German repertoire. In fact, you can even hear him imitating tempo idiosyncracies of Furtwangler in Die Walkurie. Are you suggesting that you consider him to be a better Wagner conductor because he is "non-Teutonic"? I surely hope not.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I was responding to Heck148's aversion to bringing in "extra-musical" stuff to music. I think interpretation must be "extra-musical" in nature and extrapolations should not be treated as something separate from the music but connected to music.
> 
> In a way, words and libretto are "extra-musical" in this view. That's why, to my understanding, Beethoven spent 8 symphonies and 3 movements to make a big statement about the limit of "pure-music" because "pure-music" is sufficient to speak for itself, he has to make the statement unambiguous.


I agree, an interpretation is extra-musical but I don't think this was what Heck148 had in mind. Vocal music is indeed different from pure. The thing is that the vocal part of it - the words - give it a meaning but not an interpretation though. The words and music give the raw material that has to be interpreted in one way or another. It could almost be approached as literary analysis, if one really wants, with the additional aspect that the nature of music has to be considered concurrently. It's never a one-way road - even Wagner's leitmotifs are interpretable only in the context of the stage action, while the libretto shouldn't be interpreted without considerations to the music. The interpretation, the way the conductor understands the opera and its music, is the only extra-musical thing I can see. I do not think there's any inherent meaning that could be "sensed" in the notes. If someone played me the Spear motif out of context, I'd never imagine it has something to do with Wotan's spear. The words and situation give it its context but we don't have the same context in pure music. Of course one could consider Wagner's own intentions extra-musical as well, but he stated quite clearly that in his opinion his intentions are obvious from the compositions... whether he overestimated the listener or not, I don't know.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> I agree, an interpretation is extra-musical but I don't think this was what Heck148 had in mind. Vocal music is indeed different from pure. The thing is that the vocal part of it - the words - give it a meaning but not an interpretation though. The words and music give the raw material that has to be interpreted in one way or another. It could almost be approached as literary analysis, if one really wants, with the additional aspect that the nature of music has to be considered concurrently. It's never a one-way road - even Wagner's leitmotifs are interpretable only in the context of the stage action, while the libretto shouldn't be interpreted without considerations to the music. The interpretation, the way the conductor understands the opera and its music, is the only extra-musical thing I can see. I do not think there's any inherent meaning that could be "sensed" in the notes. If someone played me the Spear motif out of context, I'd never imagine it has something to do with Wotan's spear. The words and situation give it its context but we don't have the same context in pure music. Of course one could consider Wagner's own intentions extra-musical as well, but he stated quite clearly that in his opinion his intentions are obvious from the compositions... whether he overestimated the listener or not, I don't know.


I almost completely agree with this assessment, that's precisely why one has to go "beyond" the musical text to actually interpret the work. Just like the text of a poem does not tell you anything without putting them in context or the web of language. You understand the text because you are pre-load with a language structure and all the necessary related concepts that give you the interpretation of the text. No two English readers/actors have the exact same interpretation of Hamlet because the meaning of the text is in constant flux as well.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Such a ridiculous statement. How can so many people be imagining they hear the same thing? Just because you personally don't hear it? That's myopia.


It's a very brilliant quote. Don't hear what?? your imaginary metaphysical construct which you try to sell-off as objective truth??!! LOL!!

Hey - in Beethoven Sym #3/I - measure 190 - what is the "_meaning_" of the e natural in the violas??
What's it got to do with Napoleon?? with philosophy??


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> It's a very brilliant quote. Don't hear what?? your imaginary metaphysical construct which you try to sell-off as objective truth??!! LOL!!
> 
> Hey - in Beethoven Sym #3/I - measure 190 - what is the "_meaning_" of the e natural in the violas??
> What's it got to do with Napoleon?? with philosophy??


It's a thought-provoking quote for sure.

I could ask a similar question: what is the "meaning" of the "e" in the word "meaning"? How about the "a"? What are they got to do with anything you say?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I was responding to Heck148's aversion to bringing in "extra-musical" stuff to music. I think interpretation must be "extra-musical"


I don't think so - "style" is very important to the interpretation of music...it's very much "intra-musical". But style has nothing to do with portentous philosophical or metaphysical baggage. Style is part of performance practice - knowledge, technique and application to what is being played....so the piece is in jazz or swing style - fine - one needn't study Hegelian dialectics to apply the appropriate performance style to the music.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's a thought-provoking quote for sure.
> 
> I could ask a similar question: what is the "meaning" of the "e" in the word "meaning"? How about the "a"? What are they got to do with anything you say?


I'm not the one obsessed with attaching "meaning" to all music.


----------



## annaw

Heck148 said:


> I'm not the one obsessed with attaching "meaning" to all music.


Ha, I'm more than willing to attach meaning to all music. What's the point if it has no meaning? The meaning attached _is_ the interpretation. Interpretation is not about technique - technique is just one of the ways the interpretation is conveyed. Now, what I'm still not very willing to do, is to claim that the music carries in itself some inherent and objective meaning.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The German tradition is understood by people all over the world. Surely not everyone's cup of tea. But to suggest this has something to do with being "Teutonic" (an ethnic) raises eyebrows.
> 
> Also Barenboim, being a big admirer of Furtwangler (premiered his lackluster Piano concerto), clearly went full German when it comes to the German repertoire. In fact, you can even hear him imitating tempo idiosyncracies of Furtwangler in Die Walkurie. Are you suggesting that you consider him to be a better Wagner conductor because he is "non-Teutonic"? I surely hope not.


Yes, I know Barenboim is an admirer of furtwangler, but I've never heard the extreme tempo distortions, and sloppiness which are present in F's performances....don't get me wrong - I find Furtwangler interesting, and he can be very effective -he's always going for the drama, which is good. Others do it as well or better, and keep things more precise and accurate....still, his performances have commendable power and expression.


----------



## Heck148

annaw said:


> Now, what I'm still not willing to do, is to claim that the music carries in itself some inherent and objective meaning.


yes, I think we are in basic agreement. Style of expression is very important to the interpretation, but I find that definitely connected to the music. it is not some extra-musical entity.


----------



## annaw

Heck148 said:


> yes, I think we are in basic agreement. Style of expression is very important to the interpretation, but I find that definitely connected to the music. it is not some extra-musical entity.


Yeah, for sure the interpretation is based on the music. I definitely didn't mean that I come up with an interpretation and then go to hear the music. I meant that my personal interpretation is what I personally think the piece is conveying, in the sense I'm "attaching" it, but it's not an inherent part of the music itself. Only the composer knew the intentions conveyed.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Interpretation is not about a stylistic choice like how you choose your iPhone color. Interpretation is about revealing meaning (open-ended) permitted by the musical text. This doesn't mean everything should be program music. The meaning can be as abstract as the music itself.

To say Napolean has nothing to do with the musical text of Eroica is the same as saying Haydn and Vienna school of classical symphonies has nothing to do with the musical text of Eroica. Of course, it does! So do Hegel's philosophy and freemasonry. They provide the historical context within which the musical text can be extrapolated for meaning (again can be abstract).

Without contrasting with the classical symphonies, we fail to appreciate how inventive and groundbreaking Eroica really is! Without knowing about the hero who transcends conventions, we might be confused about the profuse use of hemiolas, sforzandos, repeated dissonant diminished 7th, and the gigantic funeral march. You can of course choose to conduct Eroica like Haydn, people have done that, but that's not a great interpretation in this precise sense (but nothing in the musical text suggests otherwise).


----------



## Heck148

annaw said:


> Yeah, for sure the interpretation is based on the music. I definitely didn't mean that I come up with an interpretation and then go to hear the music. I meant that my personal interpretation is what I personally think the piece is conveying, in the sense I'm "attaching" it, but it's not an inherent part of the music itself. Only the composer knew the intentions conveyed.


yup...gotcha....


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Without contrasting with the classical symphonies, we fail to appreciate how inventive and groundbreaking Eroica really is!


It is indeed revolutionary!! it would be so with or without Napoleon. 


> You can of course choose to conduct Eroica like Haydn, people have done that,.....


Doesn't work, imo....fails to address what's written in the score.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> It is indeed revolutionary!! it would be so with or without Napoleon.


It wouldn't be so without knowing the historical context. If every composer was writing like this, it wouldn't be "revolutionary".

Without knowing Napolean and the French revolution, the ability to understand the title "Eroica", which is a part of the score, is also diminished.

There is no inherent reason to think Eroica is good. It had mixed reactions from audiences and critics of its time. Many considered it to be long, dissonant, and extreme. Most people today interpret it to be good music because there is a historical context to it.

Music is meaningless without interpretation because music happens in the brain, not in the ear.


----------



## Woodduck

Heck148 said:


> Has nothing to do with efficiency. It has to do with what we actually here. not what we imagine to exist.
> Again -
> Toscanini - regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"
> 
> "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."
> Arturo Toscanini


Pardon me if I'm dense, or not paying close enough attention, but is there actually a debate going on here about whether music can express things, and about the need for notated music to be _interpreted?_ Does someone actually believe that a performer's job is done if she merely conveys what's on the page? Is that what Stravinsky meant when he said that music expresses nothing? Is it what Toscanini meant when he said that to him the Eroica's first movement was just allegro con brio? Is that what Beethoven meant when he wrote the piece? If not, what did he mean, and how do we grasp, discuss and convey his meaning? Is doing these things merely dragging in "extramusical baggage?"

Having spent most of my life as a creative and performing musician and visual artist, I have to say that the assumption - no, the knowledge - that tones, lines and colors can _mean_ things has guided my pursuits at every moment. The idea that people can question either the existence or the value of divining and conveying meaning through art is completely incomprehensible to me.

Am I misunderstanding someone's position?


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Pardon me if I'm dense, or not paying close enough attention, but is there actually a debate going on here about whether music can express things, and about the need for notated music to be _interpreted?_ Does someone actually believe that a performer's job is done if she merely conveys what's on the page? Is that what Stravinsky meant when he said that music expresses nothing? Is it what Toscanini meant when he said that to him the Eroica's first movement was just allegro con brio? Is that what Beethoven meant when he wrote the piece? If not, what did he mean, and how do we grasp, discuss and convey his meaning? Is doing these things merely dragging in "extramusical baggage?"
> 
> Having spent most of my life as a ceative and performing musician and visual artist, I have to say that the assumption - no, the knowledge - that tones, lines and colors can _mean_ things has guided my pursuits at every moment. The idea that people can question either the existence or the value of divining and conveying meaning through art is completely incomprehensible to me.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding someone's position?


I feel this is actually an extension of a loooong discussion in the Furtwängler thread about whether music has an inherent objective meaning. (Someone can correct me as I dropped out of it at some point.)

My opinion is that an composition must be interpreted and this interpretation conveys conductor's understanding of the piece. This meaning is not inherent because we cannot know what the composer exactly meant when composing and even if we did, I have some reservations when it comes to calling music inherently [something] (e.g religious, evil, good etc) because the notes themselves don't, in my view, convey a universal meaning. It's given by the subjective context created by the composer which includes the intentions of the composer (subjective in the sense that a C in Beethoven's symphony can mean something entirely different in Mozart's). I love the "extramusical baggage" if that's the process of trying to understand the composer's intentions when he composed the piece and the meaning he wanted to convey. I find that process utterly fascinating but probably unachievable.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> I feel this is actually an extension of a loooong discussion from the Furtwängler thread about whether music has an inherent objective meaning. (Someone can correct me as I dropped out of it at some point.) My opinion is that it doesn't. It has a subjective meaning though - art has no point if it's literally meaningless. This subjective meaning is my personal understanding of the piece. By interpretation I meant basically the understanding the conductor has of the piece and which he/she is trying to convey. So, I was not intending to claim it's just Allegro con brio. My views in a nutshell.


The logical implication of your position, as I understand it, is that one subjective interpretation (a redundancy, really) of a given piece of music is as good as another. I doubt that anyone believes that. There's obviously a range of reasonable interpretations, but that range is not unbounded. Something objective must supply the boundaries of the acceptable. Is that objective factor limited to the notes on the page, or is there something else in music which is actually perceived and understood, and not merely projected onto it, by the performer?

I'm curious to hear more about the "extramusical baggage" that's been cited. What is it, and how do we know where the line is between baggage and real content?


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> The logical implication of your position, as I understand it, is that one subjective interpretation (a redundancy, really) of a given piece of music is as good as another.


If you mean _objectively_ good, then the only thing that can supply the boundaires of the acceptable is the score. Otherwise, yes, all subjective - where personal preferences supply the boundary of the acceptable.

Sometimes these personal preferences are shared to a degree, and move from subjective to intersubjective. Then they can spread by psychological force [there is empirical psychological evidence, backed by evolutionary theory, that human beings like what the majority like, and also what the successful people in society like]. But never objective.



Woodduck said:


> Something objective must supply the boundaries of the acceptable. Is that objective factor limited to the notes on the page, or is there something else in music which is actually perceived and understood, and not merely projected onto it, by the performer?


'Perceived' and 'Understood', to me, imply some kind of correspondence (or failure to correspond) between representation (whether internal [mental states] or external [written symbols] representations) and reality (broadly-defined, meaning mind-independent, to include abstract objects like mathematical 'realities'). So if these words are to apply, we need something doing the representing and something that is a candidate for being represented - something that, if the representation were true, would exist independently in reality.

The performer of music, let's say a conductor, has beliefs [mental representations] about how the music 'should' sound. But this is not a representation _of_ anything (abstract or not) - something that potentially exists independently in reality. Hence, I don't think 'perceived' nor 'understood' apply. The conductor has beliefs about, not something in reality having independent existence that may be perceived or understood, but rather what sounds good to him. [This is course in addition to his representation of the musical score!].

Of course, it's possible to say the conductor 'perceives' or 'understands' his own preferences, or the preferences of his audience - as preferences are mental states and mental states exist in reality. If that's all you want to say, then fine.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> The logical implication of your position, as I understand it, is that one subjective interpretation (a redundancy, really) of a given piece of music is as good as another. I doubt that anyone believes that. There's obviously a range of reasonable interpretations, but that range is not unbounded. Something objective must supply the boundaries of the acceptable. Is that objective factor limited to the notes on the page, or is there something else in music which is actually perceived and understood, and not merely projected onto it, by the performer?
> 
> I'm curious to hear more about the "extramusical baggage" that's been cited. What is it, and how do we know where the line is between baggage and real content?


Yea, I had time to edit my post to make my views a bit more clearer before I saw your post. I think the only way, as I see it, how we can evaluate the interpretations at least a bit objectively is to evaluate an interpretation according to composer's possible intentions. The interpretation, which seems to "fit" the music, its historical context and everything else surrounding it and connected with it, could be said to be the best. I think I didn't express myself well earlier, a piece has a meaning given to it by the composer. My subjective meaning is my try to approach composer's. Now that I think about it... you're indeed right. The meaning is not in the sense projected or attached.

My problem is that maybe my own approach limits me because I cannot answer the question what are the composer's intentions. Do you have ideas how to objectively evaluate an interpretation? I'm a bit stuck with this question.

(What do we even mean by extramusical baggage by the way?)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Sometimes these personal preferences are shared to a degree, and move from subjective to intersubjective. Then they can spread by psychological force [there is empirical evidence, backed by evolutionary theory, that human beings like what the majority like, and also what the successful people in society like]. But never objective.


I do think this take is interesting but you are simplifying quite a lot if you are quoting science or "empirical evidence". One should always be cautious about how to "interpret" the empirical evidence from biology or simiulation. The evolutionary process is incredibly complex especially on both the genetic and culture level (or even meta-culture).

Much similar to our previous discussions, I don't think the forum is the best place to start digging deeper into the scientific aspect of music interpretation. My point is that your idea of "intersubjectivity" is an interesting one but still very far from settling this issue from a scientific point of view.


----------



## RogerWaters

annaw said:


> I think the only way, as I see it, how we can evaluate the interpretations at least a bit objectively is to evaluate an interpretation according to composer's possible intentions.


The problem is, we can never really know the composer's intentions beyond the score - plus informaiton about historical performance context, of course. There will still be so much room for subjective disagreement.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I do think this take is interesting but you are simplifying quite a lot if you are quoting science or "empirical evidence". One should always be cautious about how to "interpret" the empirical evidence from biology or simiulation. The evolutionary process is incredibly complex especially on both the genetic and culture level (or even meta-culture).
> 
> Much similar to our previous discussions, I don't think the forum is the best place to start digging deeper into the scientific aspect of music interpretation. My point is that your idea of "intersubjectivity" is an interesting one but still very far from settling this issue from a scientific point of view.


Look the point about 'intersubjective' wasn't central to my comment. Of course empirical evidence is never set in stone. However, the authors of the books and papers on cultural evolution are well aware that the evolutionary process is complex.


----------



## annaw

RogerWaters said:


> The problem is, we can never really know the composer's intentions beyond the score - plus informaiton about historical performance context, of course. There will still be so much room for subjective disagreement.


That's what I also acknowledge myself and that's why I'm very interested to hear Woodduck's ideas. I'm just stuck!!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> The problem is, we can never really know the composer's intentions beyond the score - plus informaiton about historical performance context, of course. There will still be so much room for subjective disagreement.


It's a matter of probability, not absolute certainty.

Since you have quoted scientific theories, try to think of the interpretation process as a Bayesian updating process. It's all about updating the prior believes of the interpreter on "composer's true intentions", extramusical materials are similar to evidence, which after having a likelihood function, the interpreter can update their priors into posteriors (which is interpreted as "closer to the musical truth").

Of course, different performers have different "priors", different, "evidence", and different "likelihood" functions, and thence they end up in different places, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that the same "true intention" does not exist, or cannot be approached in any way.

It is this lack of absolute certainty that provides room for faiths.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's a matter of probability, not absolute certainty.
> 
> Since you have quoted scientific theories, try to think of the interpretation process as a Bayesian updating process.


I don't see what this adds, to be honest. You're just re-stating the problem using fancy terminology (Basianism).

There will be a 'fact of the matter' about the composers intentions, to some degree - but beyond the score and some historical context, we have no idea when this 'fact of the matter' has been represented correctly or not by the conductor.

In your terminology, there is no 'proper' way to update one's priors beyond the score and a bit of musicology. Of course, other posters may have something to add here...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ If you have a basic grasp of the theory, which is the foundation of a large portion of science, you realizes that it unified the the subjective and the objective into the same truth-seeking framework, which is what many have troubles with.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It wouldn't be so without knowing the historical context. If every composer was writing like this, it wouldn't be "revolutionary".


What Beethoven wrote in the score is what it is - regardless of Napoleon or anyone else, or any historical events. It's perfectly possible for someone to listen to, enjoy, and be moved by the music even tho totally ignorant of contemporary personalities or events.


> There is no inherent reason to think Eroica is good.


there is no inherent reason to think anything is "good". Knowing about Napoleon or looking to apprehend some philosophic plane of comprehension does not alter the Eroica, to make it good, great, or bad. the score does not need some outside, extra-musical influence to give it value.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Heck148 said:


> "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."Arturo Toscanini


To some others, it is:


Baron Scarpia said:


> The *erotica* is a set of instructions for producing a performance (the score). A performance is a instantiation of the score. Just like you can have a recipe for apple pie and an actual apple pie.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

hammeredklavier said:


> To some others, it is:


That's an old joke made by Thomas Mann.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> There is no inherent reason to think anything is "good". Knowing about Napoleon or looking to apprehend some philosophic plane of comprehension does not alter the Eroica, to make it good, great, or bad. the score does not need some outside, extra-musical influence to give it value.


True, so-called "extramusical" stuff does not alter Eroica the score, but it alters the interpretation of Eroica. The score itself cannot be an interpretation of the score.

If what you said is to be taken seriously, then what justifies a conductor to ever make a change to the score?

Why almost every program note will include the historical context for a work to be performed? Shouldn't the listener listen without any "extramusical" influence?


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> .... Does someone actually believe that a performer's job is done if she merely conveys what's on the page?


No, I don't think anyone is saying that.
But what is on the page, say, with "Eroica" - _is what it is_ musically - the melodies, harmonic progressions, phrases, instrumentation, the compositional progress, logic of the piece are written into the score. It is the performer's duty to discover these, present them coherently. the music will speak for itself.
What Beethoven wrote into the score is what it is, regardless of the existence of Napoleon, or any extra-musical Hegelian dialectic or whatever else, over-riding the music. 
To present a coherent, convincing rendition of the work does not require that the performer apprehend some imagined mystical, pseudo-spiritual "truth" that is metaphysically "attached" to the music.
That's what I mean by "extramusical baggage"...the idea that someone could present a very sloppy, poorly performed rendition of a work, and then claim great validity because he/she captured the _esoteric, spiritual "truth" _of the work, is incomprehensible to me....
a composer takes us on a journey, thru the score. As performers, it is our job to present that score, present that journey, that trip effectively to the listener; play what's in the score....how the listener responds is up to them - if they wish to attach extra-musical concepts, spirit, universal truth, programmatic content or whatever to it, fine, go for it....but it is not necessary for the performer to do so, imo.

I'm out of here....1400 postings over 140 pages on the other thread is [way] more than enough for me...


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> True, so-called "extramusical" stuff does not alter Eroica the score, but it alters the interpretation of Eroica. The score itself cannot be an interpretation of the score.


but the musical journey to be presented by the performer is based upon the score. not the existence of Napoleon, or any other extra-musical concepts.



> If what you said is to be taken seriously, then what justifies a conductor to ever make a change to the score?


how does the existence of Napoleon justify altering the score??

I'm done here. I've said my piece....posters are free to agree or not.....


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> If you mean _objectively_ good, then *the only thing that can supply the boundaires of the acceptable is the score.* Otherwise, yes, all subjective - where personal preferences supply the boundary of the acceptable.
> 
> Sometimes these personal preferences are shared to a degree, and move from subjective to intersubjective. Then they can spread by psychological force [there is empirical psychological evidence, backed by evolutionary theory, that human beings like what the majority like, and also what the successful people in society like]. But never objective.


Music doesn't exist in a vacuum. Intersubjective understandings of art have objective existence. Speaking as a performer confronted with the task of interpreting a score, I will consult not only the markings on the page but my knowledge of Beethoven's place in his musical culture, and how that knowledge guides the ways his music has been understood and played. This process is not merely an exercise of my subjective preferences, nor an imitation of the subjective preferences of others.



> *'Perceived' and 'Understood', to me, imply some kind of correspondence (or failure to correspond) between representation (whether internal [mental states] or external [written symbols] representations) and reality* (broadly-defined, meaning mind-independent, to include abstract objects like mathematical 'realities'). So if these words are to apply, we need something doing the representing and something that is a candidate for being represented - something that, if the representation were true, would exist independently in reality.


I agree that the communication of meaning requires a representation of something.



> *The performer of music, let's say a conductor, has beliefs [mental representations] about how the music 'should' sound. But this is not a representation of anything (abstract or not) - something that potentially exists independently in reality. *


Are you certain about that?



> Hence, I don't think 'perceived' nor 'understood' apply. The conductor has beliefs about, *not something in reality having independent existence *that may be perceived or understood, *but rather what sounds good to him. *[This is course in addition to his representation of the musical score!].


I would ask what it is, in a score and surrounding it, that determines whether something "sounds good." I believe it's much more than a contextless, _tabula rasa_ sensory or affective response to musical notation. It's possible that someone would enjoy the sound of the "Crucifixus" from Bach's _B Minor Mass_ played like a fast Viennese waltz. But such a reading would no longer evoke for anyone the agony and pathos we would associate with crucifixion, and no one would call it a good interpretation or consider it within the boundaries of the acceptable. It would simply not be Bach's _B Minor Mass,_ but some other thing that just happened to look identical on the page. The music Bach supplied for the crucifixion is radically different from what he wrote for the "Et resurrexit" that immediately follows. There's obviously something more than his "subjective preference" at work here.

Is the general perception (whether articulated intellectually or not) that some musical interpretations make more "sense" and are more "faithful" to the music merely a matter of accidental "intersubjectivity," or is there something - something existing objectively, outside of anyone's preferences - in the music that tells us how it should be performed? And does "the music" consist only of the notes on the page, or is it a larger phenomenon - cultural, psychological, biological - of which the notes are a representation and to the perception of which they are a sensory and intellectual gateway?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> How does the existence of Napoleon justify altering the score??
> 
> I'm done here. I've said my piece....posters are free to agree or not.....


You have deflected the question with another (rhetorical) question, which is also a strawman.

Nobody has ever advocated changing the score because of Napolean. The question is meant to show that the complexity of interpretation is not to be taken lightly. To suggest something is "extramusical" runs the risk of taking the music out of context, which diminishes it's worth.

For a performer to be taken seriously as an interpreter, execution is only the starting point, not the end. The performer has to know composers and it's cultural environment as much as possible, and delve into the tradition of performance practices.

Sure, any kid nowadays can play more or less "perfect" Revolutionary etude, but without knowing the November uprising, it is hardly an interpretation. Without an understanding of what November uprising means to Chopin, there is no guide to how turn those big diminished 7th chords and the relentless ascending/descending semiquavers run into a convincing narrative, and to play with the temperament that engages the audience.

It follows that there is no guide to how to shape the music and how to make the chords voiced and sound properly without this "extramusical" hint. Without these "extramusical" context, a "perfect' performance will just be another job well done on practicing the left hand 247, performing a more advanced version of Czerny. It won't move the audience and make the audience feel the nobility and tragedy of human struggle.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> To present a coherent, convincing rendition of the work does not require that the performer apprehend some imagined mystical, pseudo-spiritual "truth" that is metaphysically "attached" to the music.


Nobody is saying that either. All performers are attaching metaphysically based value to their approach whether they are aware of it or not. You don't need to say metaphysical fluff to think metaphysically. Because fundamentally, there is no justification for one artistic choice over the other based on the score and the logic of music alone.

An interpretation is different from just a rendition. To interpret is to be honest and disciplined when it comes to giving the music meaning. Some music do speak for themselves while others have more gaps to fill and more room to extrapolation.


----------



## Gray Bean

Well, writing as a simpleton, I am fascinated by Toscanini and Furtwangler. I'll go listen to some of their recordings now and enjoy every minute.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Has nothing to do with efficiency. It has to do with what we actually here. not what we imagine to exist.
> Again -
> Toscanini - regarding the First mvt of Beethoven Symphony "Eroica"
> 
> "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."
> Arturo Toscanini





Heck148 said:


> It's a very brilliant quote. Don't hear what?? your imaginary metaphysical construct which you try to sell-off as objective truth??!! LOL!!
> 
> Hey - in Beethoven Sym #3/I - measure 190 - what is the "_meaning_" of the e natural in the violas??
> What's it got to do with Napoleon?? with philosophy??





Heck148 said:


> But what is on the page, say, with "Eroica" - _is what it is_ musically - the melodies, harmonic progressions, phrases, instrumentation, the compositional progress, logic of the piece are written into the score. It is the performer's duty to discover these, present them coherently. the music will speak for itself.


So Heck, here is the absolute crux of this whole matter. Does the music really speak for itself?

You present Furtwangler as if he is just as dramatic as Toscanini, but he is simply sloppy. The implication is that those of us who are Furtwangler fans as opposed to Toscanini are merely preferring the sloppiness. There is more to it than that. When you are more or less predictable in what you are doing - consistent - it is easier to play together. When you are spontaneous, literally in the moment deciding what you are going to do, it is almost inevitable that there may be mistakes. You are taking more risks.

But it is more than risk-taking. I once relayed the story of a friend of mine who said he literally jumped up and down for joy in his dorm room the first time he heard Furtwangler's Beethoven 5th. He exclaimed, "I always knew the way Toscanini did it was wrong!" I had a similar experience, though I did not connect it to Toscanini. My favorite composers were and are Beethoven and Brahms, but I always felt deep down something was missing in the renditions I heard, though I could never put my finger on it. Then I had the "ah ha" moment - similar to my friend - when I heard Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th and Brahms 1st. I remember thinking as I put down the headphones at the listening station in Tower Records back in 1996, "I finally hear the Brahms 1st of my dreams!"

What was missing for us can be summed up in one word: *IMAGINATION*

Furtwangler *imagined* the score in his head, the idealized version of how the work _should_ sound, and he got his musicians to realize in practice what he was hearing in his mind. My friend and I also had an ideal image of the music in our head that was never quite realized before. We could only *imagine* it. *Imagination* is what bridges the gap between the written score and the ultimate idealized form of the music. When Toscanini says he only sees Allegro con Brio, he is eschewing *imagination*, for we use allusory terms to ignite our *imagination*. Obviously it doesn't necessarily have to be Napolean. It can be anything that conjurs up what the music sounds like to us. For example, Furtwangler told his musicians to picture "tearless grief" in playing the Marcia funebre. According to Toscanini - and you - this is wholly unnecessary.

But to those of us who feel that Toscanini/Reiner/Solti et.al. are missing something, it obviously is necessary. *Imagination* is what inspired the creation of great works of genius. *Imagination* is likewise necessary to do these great works justice in practice. People often said and still say that hearing Furtwangler conduct a piece often made you feel as if it were being composed on the spot. Does anyone say this of Toscanini or Reiner? To me it sounds more like dictation. And they admit that is their aim, and so do you.

Saying that the music speaks for itself is simply wrong. There is more in the music, and we have to supply this with our own subjective *IMAGINATION*. And the more successful a conductor is in making what he *imagines* into a reality in performance, the more people like me and my friend exclaim "Ah ha!" That is the whole point of interpretation!



Heck148 said:


> so you *imagine*....


PRECISELY!!! :tiphat:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I’m starting to regret my username choice since it is inevitably associated with Toscanini’s remark which I disagree with:lol:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ I am surprised that you don't use that as your signature.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm starting to regret my username choice since it is inevitably associated with Toscanini's remark which I disagree with:lol:


No, by your posts I can see that you are more than just Allegro con brio! It's all in how you interpret it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, by your posts I can see that you are more than just Allegro con brio! It's all in how you interpret it.


BH I do think you are a bit too harsh on Toscanini. He is far from being "uninspired" (lack of imagination). I still love his Brahms and Beethoven for what they are (he was Brahms' contemporary). He was sort of the antidote to his time, full of romantic conductors (surely Mengelberg was far more reprehensible for his excessive mannerism). He was the (successful) radical of his time.

I like your story of being shell-shocked by Furtwangler's Beethoven the first time. Many people have this experience. The first time Maria Callas heard Furtwangler she said that "he is Beethoven" at that moment.

And people seem to forget that Toscanini changed a lot of scores.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
I’ve always said it’s the philosophy I am attacking more than the performances, to a degree. I still find them too controlled and disciplined, not free enough.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> Music doesn't exist in a vacuum. Intersubjective understandings of art have objective existence. Speaking as a performer confronted with the task of interpreting a score, I will consult not only the markings on the page but my knowledge of Beethoven's place in his musical culture, and how that knowledge guides the ways his music has been understood and played. This process is not merely an exercise of my subjective preferences, nor an imitation of the subjective preferences of others.


I agree. I should clearly have included "the score + historical context". But, even assuming those two factors have independent existence, there is obviously still much room for varying interpretations with no objective measure of which is correct. Heck, musicology, studying historical context, itself is not a 'settled' discipline - like any other academic area isn't!



Woodduck said:


> The performer of music, let's say a conductor, has beliefs [mental representations] about how the music 'should' sound. But this is not a representation of anything (abstract or not) - something that potentially exists independently in reality.
> 
> Are you certain about that?


Of course, there are some (very non-specific, probably less specific than the score) contraints that the normal human auditory system would provide. There is no bet dogs or aliens would find Bach stimulating in anything like the way we do.



Woodduck said:


> I would ask what it is, in a score and surrounding it, that determines whether something "sounds good." I believe it's much more than a contextless, _tabula rasa_ sensory or affective response to musical notation. It's possible that someone would enjoy the sound of the "Crucifixus" from Bach's _B Minor Mass_ played like a fast Viennese waltz. But such a reading would no longer evoke for anyone the agony and pathos we would associate with crucifixion, and no one would call it a good interpretation or consider it within the boundaries of the acceptable. It would simply not be Bach's _B Minor Mass,_ but some other thing that just happened to look identical on the page. The music Bach supplied for the crucifixion is radically different from what he wrote for the "Et resurrexit" that immediately follows. There's obviously something more than his "subjective preference" at work here.


I might be wrong, but I would think that playing the Crucifixus like fast Viennese waltz would violate the score.

What i mean is surely not controversial. Think of how many different interpretations there are of the Crucifixus which are faithful to the score and backed by this or that credible musicological analysis. You find that one evokes agony, while joe blogs find it evokes boredom. The one he finds evoking of agony, you might find reminiscient of a cold shower. Who is 'right' here?!



Woodduck said:


> Is the general perception (whether articulated intellectually or not) that some musical interpretations make more "sense" and are more "faithful" to the music merely a matter of accidental "intersubjectivity," or is there something - something existing objectively, outside of anyone's preferences - in the music that tells us how it should be performed?


Aside from the score and historical context? What on earth could this be? Mystics like Brahmsianhorn have offered vague suggestions like 'what connects us as human beings', or 'the truth', but so far all such suggestions haven't carried much objective content (a performance one person might take to connect us as human beings strikes another as what repels him from his fellow human beings; a performance that reaches some mystical 'truth' for one person might leave another completely cold).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> I've always said it's the philosophy I am attacking more than the performances, to a degree. I still find them too controlled and disciplined, not free enough.


What's your take on Celibidache's Brahms and Bruckner, he imitates Furtwangler in Brahms 4th.

Karajan, on the other hand, made PO listen to Toscanini's Beethoven for his first cycle. The end result sounds very different but Karajan clearly doesn't care too much about "being deep".


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The German tradition is understood by people all over the world. Surely not everyone's cup of tea. But to suggest this has something to do with being "Teutonic" (an ethnic) raises eyebrows.
> 
> Also Barenboim, being a big admirer of Furtwangler (premiered his lackluster Piano concerto), clearly went full German when it comes to the German repertoire. In fact, you can even hear him imitating tempo idiosyncracies of Furtwangler in Die Walkurie. Are you suggesting that you consider him to be a better Wagner conductor because he is "non-Teutonic"? I surely hope not.


Barenboim might have developed into a good Wagner conductor following Furtwangler but as a Beethoven conductor he was hopeless;ess.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Preeeecisely, which is also the issue in his Beethoven.
> 
> But in music with dancing rhythms like Rossini, sure I'll take Toscanini all day. But even in Italian opera I still prefer De Sabata for his greater depth. Take for example his Verdi Requiem, so much more artful than Toscanini's but yielding nothing in excitement.


Interesting that when the de Sabata came out It received a cool reception besides the Serafin.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, in Furtwanglerland we enjoy continuing discussion because we know truth is never fully reached, but I can see why you want to truncate discussion over here. The entire philosophy is about truncating thought for the purpose of efficiency. Thanks for demonstrating that with your "in the trenches" description of what "real" musicians care about.
> 
> Interesting, I just posted the other day Furtwangler's 1953 VPO Beethoven 9th. It is one of his best. But what is truly amazing is that it was the 2nd performance of the great work that day after having performed it the night before! And yet amazingly it sounded fresh and different from the night before. Furtwangler DESPISED routine and DESPISED cold efficiency. Every performance was a new discovery.
> 
> America is known for it's ruthless efficiency. That is probably why we did not receive Furtwangler well in the 1920s, and the feeling was mutual. So wrote Furtwangler:
> 
> "I had to consider seriously the question of whether there is any sense for me to concertize in a country that meets me with such a lack of comprehension. This question has been answered - as far as I am concerned - in a negative sense, long ago."
> 
> So your scenario of American auditions would not surprise me. We sadly don't get it. I've experienced that ad nauseum as a practicing musician in this country the past few decades.


For goodness sake Toscanini despise routine and despise cold efficiency. That's why he was Toscanini and raise the standard of orchestral playing and conducting in his generation beyond anything anybody had ever known. This waffle about the truth is never known is just what it is a waffle about the emperors new clothes.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Such a ridiculous statement. How can so many people be imagining they hear the same thing? Just because you personally don't hear it? That's myopia.


The problem with you is that you read what you want into something. What Tuscany said, 'To me it is allegro con brio' He didn't just mean it was just Allegro con brio. When you listen to the fiery accounts of it there was obviously something to it far more than that. He was making a statement that you and your literal minded approach of just taken literally. Let's face itFurtwangler didn't even get as far as 'allegro con brio' in the version on my shelf!


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> What exactly do you mean by extra-musical? Words and libretto, the meaning composer wanted to convey?


There is an awful lot of this business of extramusical stuff which is the emperors new clothes. The philosophy is in the notes.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What's your take on Celibidache's Brahms and Bruckner, he imitates Furtwangler in Brahms 4th.
> 
> Karajan, on the other hand, made PO listen to Toscanini's Beethoven for his first cycle. The end result sounds very different but Karajan clearly doesn't care too much about "being deep".


Celi sends me to sleep. I got rid of his Brahms cycle. So boring. What do you mean about Karajan doesn't care too much about being deep? That is a completely meaningless statement. Do you mean he doesn't pull the rhythm about like Beethoven didn't intend him to? He actually pays attention to Beethoven's markings? In any case where did you read that the players listened to Toscanini?


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> There is an awful lot of this business of extramusical stuff which is the emperors new clothes. The philosophy is in the notes.


+ musicological interpretation


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> + musicological interpretation


Of course a lot of FurtwNgler's so-called philosophical interpretation of the classics comes from a Wagnerian tradition not from the coppers themselves


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So Heck, here is the absolute crux of this whole matter. Does the music really speak for itself?
> 
> You present Furtwangler as if he is just as dramatic as Toscanini, but he is simply sloppy. The implication is that those of us who are Furtwangler fans as opposed to Toscanini are merely preferring the sloppiness. There is more to it than that. When you are more or less predictable in what you are doing - consistent - it is easier to play together. When you are spontaneous, literally in the moment deciding what you are going to do, it is almost inevitable that there may be mistakes. You are taking more risks.
> 
> But it is more than risk-taking. I once relayed the story of a friend of mine who said he literally jumped up and down for joy in his dorm room the first time he heard Furtwangler's Beethoven 5th. He exclaimed, "I always knew the way Toscanini did it was wrong!" I had a similar experience, though I did not connect it to Toscanini. My favorite composers were and are Beethoven and Brahms, but I always felt deep down something was missing in the renditions I heard, though I could never put my finger on it. Then I had the "ah ha" moment - similar to my friend - when I heard Furtwangler's Beethoven 9th and Brahms 1st. I remember thinking as I put down the headphones at the listening station in Tower Records back in 1996, "I finally hear the Brahms 1st of my dreams!"
> 
> What was missing for us can be summed up in one word: *IMAGINATION*
> 
> Furtwangler *imagined* the score in his head, the idealized version of how the work _should_ sound, and he got his musicians to realize in practice what he was hearing in his mind. My friend and I also had an ideal image of the music in our head that was never quite realized before. We could only *imagine* it. *Imagination* is what bridges the gap between the written score and the ultimate idealized form of the music. When Toscanini says he only sees Allegro con Brio, he is eschewing *imagination*, for we use allusory terms to ignite our *imagination*. Obviously it doesn't necessarily have to be Napolean. It can be anything that conjurs up what the music sounds like to us. For example, Furtwangler told his musicians to picture "tearless grief" in playing the Marcia funebre. According to Toscanini - and you - this is wholly unnecessary.
> 
> But to those of us who feel that Toscanini/Reiner/Solti et.al. are missing something, it obviously is necessary. *Imagination* is what inspired the creation of great works of genius. *Imagination* is likewise necessary to do these great works justice in practice. People often said and still say that hearing Furtwangler conduct a piece often made you feel as if it were being composed on the spot. Does anyone say this of Toscanini or Reiner? To me it sounds more like dictation. And they admit that is their aim, and so do you.
> 
> Saying that the music speaks for itself is simply wrong. There is more in the music, and we have to supply this with our own subjective *IMAGINATION*. And the more successful a conductor is in making what he *imagines* into a reality in performance, the more people like me and my friend exclaim "Ah ha!" That is the whole point of interpretation!
> 
> PRECISELY!!! :tiphat:


So because of your Dorm friend the way Beethoven wrote his 5th symphony was wrong! You don't need to imagine the score in your head because the score is on the paper. It's a load of baloney. You are in the realm of fantasy. You are also in the realm of fantasy with Toscanini when you say he eschewed imagination. That's not what I hear when I hear his volcanic performances. There is imagination in spades. Basically you have a very simplistic argument indeed that Furtwangler interpreted music and everyone else was literalistic. And you always have some anecdote about some friend who has a revelation to back it up Sorry this won't wash with intelligent people.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I agree. I should clearly have included "the score + historical context". But, even assuming those two factors have independent existence, there is obviously still much room for varying interpretations with no objective measure of which is correct. Heck, musicology, studying historical context, itself is not a 'settled' discipline - like any other academic area isn't!
> 
> Of course, there are some (very non-specific, probably less specific than the score) contraints that the normal human auditory system would provide. There is no bet dogs or aliens would find Bach stimulating in anything like the way we do.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I would think that playing the Crucifixus like fast Viennese waltz would violate the score.
> 
> What i mean is surely not controversial. Think of how many different interpretations there are of the Crucifixus which are faithful to the score and backed by this or that credible musicological analysis. You find that one evokes agony, while joe blogs find it evokes boredom. The one he finds evoking of agony, you might find reminiscient of a cold shower. Who is 'right' here?!
> 
> Aside from the score and historical context? What on earth could this be? Mystics like Brahmsianhorn have offered vague suggestions like 'what connects us as human beings', or 'the truth', but so far all such suggestions haven't carried much objective content (a performance one person might take to connect us as human beings strikes another as what repels him from his fellow human beings; a performance that reaches some mystical 'truth' for one person might leave another completely cold).


From your response here I suspect we don't disagree too much, though I'm not sure.

I think it's important to note that variety in human reactions to music and in interpretations of scores doesn't show that music is purely abstract and non-representational, that it has no referents in our psychic and physical lives, or that these elements are not important to its ability to evoke feelings, sometimes rather specific feelings and, to a remarkable extent, apparently similar feelings in different people.

I'd venture to say that the range of plausible interpretations of Bach's "Crucifixus," and of most other musical works in the notated tradition we call classical music, is not as broad as you might be suggesting. Works differ as to how much variety they can accommodate, but even in music that allows for much latitude there are many ways of articulating a piece as to tempo, rubato, dynamics, accents and phrasing which any intelligent, sensitive, informed musician would know he simply can't inflict upon it. Musicians tend to have a substantially shared perception of what approaches are simply out of bounds and would constitute violations of what the composer is aiming at.

We'll always have disagreements about what approaches to a piece seem to us to get nearest what we feel is essential in it, but if we're musically wise we won't get too rigidly attached to any one approach. What a work of art is "about" is wide enough to accommodate our individuality. As I listen to a Brahms symphony performed by several leading conductors, I may find that one brings out something, even something important, in the music that another misses, but the work remains substantially the same work, and it does so not merely because all play the same notes but because good musicians perceive and work within certain aesthetic limits which the piece - its notation, style, and cultural context - imposes on their musical imaginations. If they transgress these limits - and there are plenty of ways to do it - they're very likely to elicit a reaction such as, "Well, it was interesting, but it certainly wasn't Brahms."


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I think it's important to note that variety in human reactions to music and in interpretations of scores doesn't show that music is purely abstract and non-representational, that it has no referents in our psychic and physical lives, or that these elements are not important to its ability to evoke feelings, sometimes rather specific feelings and, to a remarkable extent, apparently similar feelings in different people.


Yeah, I was playing up the differences between people, seeing as the underlying intention of my post was to discredit the absurd idea of objective musical 'truth' (beyond the score + historical anlysis). But you are of course correct in stressing a significant level of intersubjectivity. Some (by no means all) evolutionary theorists speculate that our love for music is an adaptation that evolved because it increased group bonding and thus social cooperation among our ancestors. I'm not endorsing this view, but if it's true it would ceraintly explain shared agreement with music.

However, intersubjective agreement certaintly does _not_ suggest the existence of objective musical truth. For instance, humans probably experience the colour green in the same way (although we will never know), but this is not an objective reflection of reality. There is no 'greenness' outside of shared human experience - only wavelengths of light vibrating at a certain frequency. When it comes to music, intersubjectivity might mean a particular musical performance hit on what, say, Bach intended, but it may not. I don't think intersubjective agreement will be a good guide here. A better guide will be the score + historical analysis, as evinced by the move away from 20th-century orchestral obesity towards HIP in Bach.

On the other hand, others seem to hint at a *completely different* understanding of musical truth. Not the composer's intentions, backed by a careful reading of the score along with contextual analysis, necessarily, but rather a gross inversion of subjective taste into a metaphysical monster - like the floating baby in 2001: A Space Odyssey.


----------



## NLAdriaan

hammeredklavier said:


> Since Brahmsianhorn hasn't arranged for this to be on standby, I'll do it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next up: "Explain *fascistnation* with Karajan"..?


Is this what you call a Freudian typo:lol:? I find it most amusing but probably your airplane won't be enough to kill the fire you started.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> For instance, humans probably experience the colour green in the same way (although we will never know), but this is not an objective reflection of reality. There is no 'greenness' outside of shared human experience - only wavelength of light vibrating at a certain frequency.


"Greenness" is just a symbol to mean certain "wavelength of light vibrating at a certain frequency". As a verifiable concept, it exists and it's objective (as can be objectively verified and agreed upon).

Even the concept of wavelength and frequency is more likely to be features of our brain rather than the fundamental properties of reality.



RogerWaters said:


> When it comes to music, intersubjectivity might mean a particular musical performance hit on what, say, Bach intended, but it may not. I don't think the intersubjective agreement will be a good guide here. A better guide will be the score + historical analysis.


I don't see how the concept of intersubjectivity relates to Bach's intention. If intersubjectivity is the result of some stable equilibrium of an evolutionary process (whose environment is changing all the time), then

1. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be predictable in the Newtonian sense (it's complex dynamics)
2. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be determined by Bach's intention unless Bach's intention is identifiable (learnable) and there are significant social learning forces.

I agree that score + historical analysis is the basis for any serious interpretation, but the historical context is all-encompassing. There are degrees of freedom for determining which part of historical context is important, and what is a plausible model for Beethoven or Bach's thought process, and what is a good model to apply all of this to interpret the music. Therefore Furtwangler's idea of "sensualize the spiritual, spiritualize the sensual" is valid because it provides a model for Beethoven's thought process (will) through the spiritual dimension of the historical context, and it also provides a way to apply it to the music (sensualize). Of course, we don't what he meant precisely.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "Greenness" is just a symbol to mean certain "wavelength of light vibrating at a certain frequency". As a verifiable concept, it exists and it's objective (as can be objectively verified and agreed upon).
> 
> Even the concept of wavelength and frequency is more likely to be features of our brain rather than the fundamental properties of reality.
> 
> I don't see how the concept of intersubjectivity relates to Bach's intention. If intersubjectivity is the result of some stable equilibrium of an evolutionary process (whose environment is changing all the time), then
> 
> 1. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be predictable in the Newtonian sense (it's complex dynamics)
> 2. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be determined by Bach's intention unless Bach's intention is identifiable (learnable) and there are significant social learning forces.
> 
> I agree that score + historical analysis is the basis for any serious interpretation, but the historical context is all-encompassing. There are degrees of freedom for determining which part of historical context is important, and what is a plausible model for Beethoven or Bach's thought process, and what is a good model to apply all of this to interpret the music. *Therefore Furtwangler's idea of "sensualize the spiritual, spiritualize the sensual" is valid because it provides a model for Beethoven's thought process (will) through the spiritual dimension of the historical context, and it also provides a way to apply it to the music (sensualize). Of course, we don't what he meant precisely.*


Interesting, the idea isvalid even though we don't know what he meant by it! Like Alice in Wonderland- "If anyone can tell me the meaning I'll give him sixpence!"


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Interesting, the idea isvalid even though we don't know what he meant by it! Like Alice in Wonderland- "If anyone can tell me the meaning I'll give him sixpence!"


Most Maestros don't really impart all their thought process and spell out everything for their disciples. This doesn't prevent us from getting the gist of it.

It's valid in the sense that he has a model to interpret the historical context, and that he also a model to linking them to the music. This is my interpretation of the quote in this context. The details are unknown but irrelevant to the question.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "Greenness" is just a symbol to mean certain "wavelength of light vibrating at a certain frequency". As a verifiable concept, it exists and it's objective (as can be objectively verified and agreed upon).


I meant the subjective experience of green-ness, as opposed to, say, blue-ness.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Most Maestros don't really impart all their thought process and spell out everything for their disciples. This doesn't prevent us from getting the gist of it.
> 
> It's valid in the sense that he has a model to interpret the historical context, and that he also a model to linking them to the music. This is my interpretation of the quote in this context. *The details are unknown but irrelevant to the questio*n.


I would've said the details are very relevant and if they are unknown the whole thing is irrelevant


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I don't see how the concept of intersubjectivity relates to Bach's intention. If intersubjectivity is the result of some stable equilibrium of an evolutionary process (whose environment is changing all the time), then
> 
> 1. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be predictable in the Newtonian sense (it's complex dynamics)
> 2. Intersubjectivity is unlikely to be determined by Bach's intention unless Bach's intention is identifiable (learnable) and there are significant social learning forces.
> 
> I agree that score + historical analysis is the basis for any serious interpretation, but the historical context is all-encompassing. There are degrees of freedom for determining which part of historical context is important, and what is a plausible model for Beethoven or Bach's thought process, and what is a good model to apply all of this to interpret the music. Therefore Furtwangler's idea of "sensualize the spiritual, spiritualize the sensual" is valid because it provides a model for Beethoven's thought process (will) through the spiritual dimension of the historical context, and it also provides a way to apply it to the music (sensualize). Of course, we don't what he meant precisely.


I'm not following you at all throughought these bits.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> I would've said the details are very relevant and if they are unknown the whole thing is irrelevant


Why? The point is that "spirituality" is just one way to approach the historical context. Whether that's "spirituality" in the religious sense or the Hegelian sense, is more of a scholarly question, which can be answered by a more detailed study.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not following you at all throughought these bits.


It's OK. I am merely expanding the idea of intersubjectivity and try to clarify what can we establish about it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

"Furtwängler vs. Toscanini has led to a number of misleading but unfortunately popular generalizations: Toscanini was a melodic conductor; Furtwängler a harmonic one. Toscanini was fast; Furtwängler was slow. Toscanini was objective; Furtwängler was subjective. Toscanini was an open and giving Mediterranean; Furtwängler was an aloof and pensive Teuton. While there was some truth in each case, too many people assumed that these were the pure, simple truths of the matter. Yet, as Oscar Wilde once noted, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. A writer attempting to deal with any question of this sort, as critic B. H. Haggin observed, writes not what is true, but what is true for him." - John Ardoin


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Why? The point is that "spirituality" is just one way to approach the historical context. Whether that's "spirituality" in the religious sense or the Hegelian sense, is more of a scholarly question, which can be answered by a more detailed study.


Sorry but your statements are meaningless unless you know what something means. I don't think you know what it means yourself


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Sorry but your statements are meaningless unless you know what something means. I don't think you know what it means yourself


That's fair. But I am content with both interpretations and do not want to get to the bottom of it. It's still meaningful because "spirituality" narrows down to a few options that can be expanded upon. I like to deal with probabilities and multiplicities but never full certainty.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's fair. But I am content with both interpretations and do not want to get to the bottom of it. It's still meaningful because "spirituality" narrows down to a few options that can be expanded upon. I like to deal with probabilities and multiplicities but never full certainty.


Always reminds me of a guy who was waffling on in meaningless terms about philosophical truth at great length. No-one could understand a word he said but at the end everyone said in hushed tones, "Wasn't he deep!" Emperors new clothes! Not deep - just incomprehensible! Liker moist philosophers! :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

NLAdriaan said:


> Is this what you call a Freudian typo:lol:?


It wasn't really a typo. Feel free to use the joke on any of the three guys you consider to be _"the National socialist trio"_: F, W, K


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "Furtwängler vs. Toscanini has led to a number of misleading but unfortunately popular generalizations: Toscanini was a melodic conductor; Furtwängler a harmonic one. Toscanini was fast; Furtwängler was slow. Toscanini was objective; Furtwängler was subjective. Toscanini was an open and giving Mediterranean; Furtwängler was an aloof and pensive Teuton. While there was some truth in each case, too many people assumed that these were the pure, simple truths of the matter. Yet, as Oscar Wilde once noted, the truth is rarely pure and never simple. A writer attempting to deal with any question of this sort, as critic B. H. Haggin observed, writes not what is true, but what is true for him." - John Ardoin


Actually the whole things can be summed up as preferences only Furtwangler fans feel they have to dress up their preference by talking about philosophical meanings behind things in order to justify themselves. No, it is just a matter of preferences.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> Actually the whole things can be summed up as preferences only Furtwangler fans feel they have to dress up their preference by talking about philosophical meanings behind things in order to justify themselves. No, it is just a matter of preferences.


Whether you like it to not, that's his approach. This has nothing to do with the fans "dressing it up", fans are simply interpreting his approach in their own terms. And what's wrong with philosophical meanings?

Preferring the intellectual or the spiritual or the philosophical is just a preference like you said. Certainly not more reproachable than the preferring the direct or the material or the plain, unless your philosophy is that simple and plain things are better than intellectual and philosophical things, which I am fine with. But just say it.

Or maybe your complaint is that simplicity is the true sign of "intellect" and your so-call "waffles" are a sign of "psedo-intellect". Maybe you are suggesting that Furtwangler fans are a bunch of psedo-intellectuals who know no better. But this misguided because fans are not trying to be intellectual themselves but rather describing the intellectual approach that has been the hallmark of Furtwangler's style. Do any fan understand fully the Maestro's actual thought process? No. Do they use words that might appear pompous? Yes. Does that somehow make them psedo-intellects? No.

You don't need to know much about theology to know someone is a serious theologian. You don't need to know much about business to know someone is a serious businessman. You don't need to be an intellectual to appreciate Furtwangler taking the intellectual approach.

Or maybe you are just trolling, adopting an anti-intellectual persona to debate a moot point. If so, you got me. I am just disappointed that I have not seen many concrete arguments coming from you, you know, an argument with something to back it up. You poked some holes in my arguments and made some assertions, that's all.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *Furtwangler fans feel they have to dress up their preference by talking about philosophical meanings behind things in order to justify themselves*.


How condescending. Has it occurred to you that people resort to "philosophical meanings" in order to convey their understanding of the thing they're talking about? If certain artists tend to inspire contemplation of a philosophical nature, wouldn't it be sensible to assume that there's something about the art that inspires it? Artistic valuation is NOT "just a matter of preferences." There are real values in art worth talking about.

Taken at face value, a great deal of "philosophical" talk, like a great deal of religion, is nonsense and is easy to mock or deride, but it can be a gateway to some underlying truth. There are reasons why Furtwangler inspires comments of a sort that most conductors, including Toscanini, do not. That doesn't imply that the commenters are right or wrong - saying anything meaningful about the conductor or merely expressing their own perceptions of reality. But in either case there is no justification for accusing them of having ulterior motives.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> How condescending. Has it occurred to you that people resort to "philosophical meanings" in order to convey their understanding of the thing they're talking about? If certain artists tend to inspire contemplation of a philosophical nature, wouldn't it be sensible to assume that there's something about the art that inspires it? Artistic valuation is NOT "just a matter of preferences." There are real values in art worth talking about.


1. 'real values' 
2. The problem with 'real values'.

ONE:

Values in art might be 'real' to extend they motivate someone to discuss their reactions to art, but they aren't real in the sense of corresponding to anything aside from people's preferences. If I value adherence to the score, that is my preference, not a rule written in the stars or existing in some other mind-independent sense. Hell, when you get down to it, even being rational/logical is merely a preference. You can't argue with something who doesn't care about logical consistency - and not simply because they are illogical. So how could artistic values be secure when much 'deeper' values like rational consistency aren't even secure?

TWO:

None of 1 is necesarily a problem. The problem is when either:

1. these 'real values' in art are held up as objective, and thus (by definition of 'objective'!), position, explicitly or implicitly, someone else's conflicting preferences as in some sense normatively impoverished. We have seen glimpses (not outright admission) of this all throughout these rediculous threads on Fartwangler and Tossacanini - and such glimpses have not come from the Tossacanini fans.
2. challenges to these 'real values' provoke hostility because people feel something sacred has been violated, when all that has really happened is that their subjective or intersubjective preferences have been treated accordingly. Again I think we've seen glimpses of this, too, and not from the Tossacanini fans. I believe this has been the cause of so much garbage that has been written in these threads - non-F fans pointing out that some philosophical justiciation of art is not binding on anyone who doesn't share the same _musical preferences_ as F fans; F fans becoming triggered and writing opaque defences of artistic objectivity; non-F fans pointing out the dubiousness of these defences; discussion breaking down and getting personal.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> If I value adherence to the score, that is my preference, not a rule written in the stars or existing in some other mind-independent sense.


It's a value that's independent of your mind just like any other values such as "stealing is bad" and it's real in that sense.



RogerWaters said:


> The problem is when these 'real values' are held up as objective.


That's how values work, you act as if others would act in the same way, it's called categorical imperative or Nash equilibrium. No one believes the "values" are objective in the naive scientific sense.



RogerWaters said:


> Thus (by definition of 'objective'!), position, explicitly or implicitly, someone else's preferences as in some sense normatively impoverished.


People who believe the second coming of Jesus (as a fact) and that I should suffer eternally in hell by abandoning God's way does not "normatively impoverished" my preference for materialism and secularism because that's not what I believe. It certainly does not prevent me from seeing why they think in this way in my own terms.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If I value adherence to the score, that is my preference, not a rule written in the stars or existing in some other mind-independent sense.
> 
> It's a value that's independent of your mind just like any other values such as "stealing is bad" and it's real in that sense.


This is where we need to be precise and clear. 'Stealing is bad' exists exists outside my mind, merely in the sense that other people also hold it'. However, it doesn't exist outside the minds of human beings. The universe answers not to this value, to put it metaphorically. Similarly, some artistic value may be shared by others - but usually far less other people than the value 'stealing is bad' - but it is completely dependend for its existence on the minds of human beings.

[Note: I added more to my post just before you responded]


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> This is where we need to be precise and clear. 'Stealing is bad' exists exists outside my mind, merely in the sense that other people also hold it'. However, it doesn't exist outside the minds of human beings. The universe answers not to this value, to put it metaphorically. Similarly, some artistic value may be shared by others - but usually far less other people than the value 'stealing is bad' - but it is completely dependend for its existence on the minds of human beings.


So is music, our collective culture, even our scientific concepts do not exist outside the minds of the human beings.

As I have explained to you multiple times, even "matter" might be the product of our brain, rather than being fundamental to reality. There is only quantum oscillation in reality as far as we know, "matter" is just a representation of it that the human brain can understand.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> 1. 'real values'
> 2. The problem with 'real values'.
> 
> ONE:
> 
> Values in art might be 'real' to extend they motivate someone to discuss their reactions to art, but they aren't real in the sense of corresponding to anything aside from people's preferences. If I value adherence to the score, that is my preference, not a rule written in the stars or existing in some other mind-independent sense. Hell, when you get down to it, even being rational/logical is merely a preference. You can't argue with something who doesn't care about logical consistency - and not simply because they are illogical. So how could artistic values be secure when much 'deeper' values like rational consistency aren't even secure?
> 
> TWO:
> 
> None of 1 is necesarily a problem. The problem is when either:
> 
> 1. these 'real values' in art are held up as objective, and thus (by definition of 'objective'!), position, explicitly or implicitly, someone else's conflicting preferences as in some sense normatively impoverished. We have seen glimpses (not outright admission) of this all throughout these rediculous threads on Fartwangler and Tossacanini - and such glimpses have not come from the Tossacanini fans.
> 2. challenges to these 'real values' provoke hostility because people feel something sacred has been violated, when all that has really happened is that their subjective or intersubjective preferences have been treated accordingly. Again I think we've seen glimpses of this, too, and not from the Tossacanini fans. I believe this has been the cause of so much garbage that has been written in these threads - non-F fans pointing out that some philosophical justiciation of art is not binding on anyone who doesn't share the same _musical preferences_ as F fans; F fans becoming triggered and writing opaque defences of artistic objectivity; non-F fans pointing out the dubiousness of these defences; discussion breaking down and getting personal.


You are completely, absolutely 100% wrong on this. It is the Toscanini fans who claim their way is based on the "facts" of the music and dismissing the Furtwängler fans as inventing things that are "extra-musical" and don't really exist. The response of the Furtwängler fans is that the written score is not the end of the story and there exists more beyond it, which we use our imaginations to conjure and which connects us to the deeper meaning of the music. The Toscanini fans respond that this is nonsense and that the score is all there is. At the very least you can be honest and state that each side is presenting their own definition of what constitutes truth, which has been my thesis this entire time. Neither side is "right" except in their own minds. But neither is either side merely engaging in taste or preference because they are both engaging in a search for what they consider to be objective truth.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But neither is either side merely engaging in taste or preference because they are both engaging in a search for what they consider to be objective truth.


Right. And the F fans seem to think, or at the very least get very testy about attacks on the idea, that there is objective truth outside the score + historical context, and T fans don't (at least, not on this forum).

Food for thought.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> So is music, our collective culture, even our scientific concepts do not exist outside the minds of the human beings.


it could be a language barrier, but this is blown out of proportion. I said nothing about scientific concepts.

But of course scientific concepts, qua _concepts_, don't exist outside our minds. What these concepts _refer to_, however, often does exist outside our minds.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> As I have explained to you multiple times, even "matter" might be the product of our brain, rather than being fundamental to reality. There is only quantum oscillation in reality as far as we know, "matter" is just a representation of it that the human brain can understand.


LOL. I'd like to see your faith in this when you are asked to jump off a building and come face-to-face with said matter.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Challenges to these 'real values' provoke hostility because people feel something sacred has been violated, when all that has really happened is that their subjective or intersubjective preferences have been treated accordingly. Again I think we've seen glimpses of this, too, and not from the Tossacanini fans. I believe this has been the cause of so much garbage that has been written in these threads - non-F fans pointing out that some philosophical justiciation of art is not binding on anyone who doesn't share the same _musical preferences_ as F fans; F fans becoming triggered and writing opaque defences of artistic objectivity; non-F fans pointing out the dubiousness of these defences; discussion breaking down and getting personal.


So that's the narrative you have concocted in your mind. Again, if you can't appreciate Furtwangler it's perfectly fine, I don't see how BH's view or my view bind you in any way, and I personally don't feel violated at all, I never expect you to appreciate anyway.

But the narrative seems to be instead, that such a view is just "garbage", or "emperor's new cloth", or "BS". So it's worth defending to clarify my own view, up to a point. I have yet seen any so-called "F fan" doing such an offensive attack, but rather specific and mild criticism on Toscanini, related to one's aesthetic judgment.

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself the question, why do you care so much about "exposing the BS" in the appreciation of music, when what's being discussed is not so different from other discussions on conductors, program notes, liner notes, or even writing of the composers themselves.

There are other perfect explanations such as "there is no BS", "you are a diehard rationalist", "it's difficult writing about music", etc, so by Occam's razor, you could be perfectly happy just as I am perfectly happy with people who claims Eugene Ormandy is the most exciting conductor who has ever lived.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> LOL. I'd like to see your faith in this when you are asked to jump off a building and come face-to-face with said matter.


Oh boy, I think I might jump off a building after seeing someone who has made such a courageous leap of deduction.

Just to that you know, my friend the man of science, the stable matter is the manifestation of the concentration of probability of observed particles' states determined by taking squares of the wavefunction of their quantum states implied by the Schrodinger's equation.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Ultimately, you have to ask yourself the question, why do you care so much about "exposing the ********" in the appreciation of music,.


I could ask you the same question


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Right. And the F fans seem to think, or at the very least get very testy about attacks on the idea, that there is objective truth outside the score + historical context, and T fans don't (at least, not on this forum).
> 
> Food for thought.


But regardless they each see truth the way they see it. How does that make one any better than the other?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I could ask you the same question


I certainly don't think you are full of ****, are you?

In fact, F fans do not seek to expose anything for there is nothing to be exposed.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But regardless they each see truth the way they see it. How does that make one any better than the other?


Let me put it this way. If one party thinks unicorns exist (F), and the other party thinks only horses exist (T), and if you subjectively value the Truth - then....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Let me put it this way. If one party thinks unicorns exist (F), and the other party thinks only horses exist (T), and if you subjectively value the Truth - then....


That's not the appropriate concept of truth to be applied here if you want to understand what BH is saying.

I have provided you with so many different concepts of truth (in philosophy and in science) that might help you understand, but you still insist upon truth as being a boolean value assigned to some statement.

Are you here to "expose the BS" or here to "understand others"?


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I have provided you with so many different concepts of truth (in philosophy and in science) that might help you understand, but you still insist upon truth as being a boolean value assigned to some statement.


You are proving my case for me. The opaqueness of F fans who seem to get testy when it is pointed out to them that there is no objective musical truth outside the composer's intentions.

My God... in response to skepticism towards the idea of objective musical values you are now seeking to muddy the very concept of truth itself - just like BH did with the concept of objectivity!



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Are you here to "expose the BS" or here to "understand others"?


Are these two mutually exclusive? you have to understand someone before you disgaree with them.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Let me put it this way. If one party thinks unicorns exist (F), and the other party thinks only horses exist (T), and if you subjectively value the Truth - then....


So you're saying in this case one party is right and one party is wrong, the exact thing you've been accusing others of doing


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> My God... in response to skepticism towards the idea of objective musical values you are now seeking to muddy the very concept of truth itself - just like BH did with the concept of objectivity!


Anyone who has read some philosophy knows the immense complexity of the idea of truth. Let me give you an example in Aristotle's Categories, the statement of "he is sitting" can only be true or false, but if the one the statement is referring is standing and sitting all the time, then the value of the statement is also changing all the time.

Hegel also has this idea that "the will" is the truth itself, because it is related to nothing but itself, in the sense that only will have the property that its true value does not depend on the T/F of other related propositions or ideas. I can go on and on about this but you get the point.

You cannot fact check a conductor's style if that's your concern in this post-truth world.

Let me also give you a concrete real-world example, that is analogous to what BH said: consider two Hedge funds managers (F and T) trying to earn as much rate of return as possible by knowing the true state of the economy or firms better than the market. T and F have different strategies of analysis, models, empirical methods, and data so that each has a different version of the same true state of the economy. They can both beat the market, which means they are closer to the truth than the market (it's not purely subjective), but each has its own version of the truth (what is really happening in the economy/company).


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Anyone who has read some philosophy knows the immense complexity of the idea of truth. Let me give you an example in Aristotle's Categories, the statement of "he is sitting" can only be true or false, but if the one the statement is referring is standing and sitting all the time, then the value of the statement is also changing all the time.
> 
> Hegel also has this idea that "the will" is the truth itself, because it is related to nothing but itself, in the sense that only will have the property that its true value does not depend on the T/F of other related propositions or ideas. I can go on and on about this but you get the point.
> 
> You cannot fact check a conductor's style if that's your concern in this post-truth world.
> 
> Let me also give you a concrete real-world example, that is analogous to what BH said: consider two Hedge funds managers (F and T) trying to earn as much rate of return as possible by knowing the true state of the economy or firms better than the market. T and F have different strategies of analysis, models, empirical methods, and data so that each has a different version of the same true state of the economy. They can both beat the market, which means they are closer to the truth than the market (it's not purely subjective), but each has its own version of the truth (what is really happening in the economy/company).


I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm not interested in getting into opaque debates with you about the truth. I have some work to attend to. I will say, however, that I think you're illustrating DavidA's point precisely. You F fans are peddlers of all things opaque. When challenged, you seek to complicate matters, not make them clearer. I'll let you have the last reply.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm not interested in getting into opaque debates with you about the truth. I have some work to attend to. I will say, however, that I think you're illustrating DavidA's point precisely. You F fans are peddlers of all things opaque. When challenged, you seek to complicate matters, not make them clearer. I'll let you have the last reply.


You are not offensive. But you are again accusing F fans being "peddlers of all things opaque". I see far more accusations than good arguments from the champions of "clear arguments".

Interpretation is a complex matter and Furtwangler was an overeducated intellectual, steeped in the Greek and German tradition from a privileged childhood and family, unlike the humble beginning of Toscanini. If you want to go philosophical, then you need to have the stomach for something a bit more complex.

You are entitled to be not interested in anything and I appreciate you being a good devil's advocate.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm not interested in getting into opaque debates with you about the truth. I have some work to attend to. I will say, however, that I think you're illustrating DavidA's point precisely. You F fans are peddlers of all things opaque. When challenged, you seek to complicate matters, not make them clearer. I'll let you have the last reply.


Your point is that there is the objective score, and there are random preferences, and that's it. My rejection of your thesis is that you cannot explain the popularity of Furtwängler. He saw a truth beyond the score, and others including myself see it too. That is proof of its existence. Otherwise no one would care about Furtwängler.

Imagine there are two objects that are both green. The Toscaninis see them as identically green. The Furtwänglerians see them as slightly different shades of green. The Toscaninis respond that this is nonsense and they are inventing something imaginary. Green is green. My refutation is that if the Furtwänglerians are more or less agreeing on the different shades they are seeing, you cannot dismiss it as fantasy. They are seeing something real, otherwise there would be no common ground among them, no connection. The Toscaninis simply cannot see it.

That is an exact analogy to this debate.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> 1. 'real values'
> 2. The problem with 'real values'.
> 
> ONE:
> 
> Values in art might be 'real' to extend they motivate someone to discuss their reactions to art, but they aren't real in the sense of corresponding to anything aside from people's preferences. If I value adherence to the score, that is my preference, not a rule written in the stars or existing in some other mind-independent sense. Hell, when you get down to it, even being rational/logical is merely a preference. You can't argue with something who doesn't care about logical consistency - and not simply because they are illogical. So how could artistic values be secure when much 'deeper' values like rational consistency aren't even secure?
> 
> TWO:
> 
> None of 1 is necesarily a problem. The problem is when either:
> 
> 1. these 'real values' in art are held up as objective, and thus (by definition of 'objective'!), position, explicitly or implicitly, someone else's conflicting preferences as in some sense normatively impoverished. We have seen glimpses (not outright admission) of this all throughout these rediculous threads on Fartwangler and Tossacanini - and such glimpses have not come from the Tossacanini fans.
> 2. challenges to these 'real values' provoke hostility because people feel something sacred has been violated, when all that has really happened is that their subjective or intersubjective preferences have been treated accordingly. Again I think we've seen glimpses of this, too, and not from the Tossacanini fans. I believe this has been the cause of so much garbage that has been written in these threads - non-F fans pointing out that some philosophical justiciation of art is not binding on anyone who doesn't share the same _musical preferences_ as F fans; F fans becoming triggered and writing opaque defences of artistic objectivity; non-F fans pointing out the dubiousness of these defences; discussion breaking down and getting personal.


I can't see this as an answer to my remarks, since I wasn't addressing the truth status of value judgments but only their existence and the validity of talking about them, a pursuit for which DavidA seemed to have contempt.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your point is that there is the objective score, and there are random preferences, and that's it.


Pretty much (but with the addition of musicological analysis to the objective score). But also there are intersubjective preferences - preferences shared between people. However, because a preference is shared does not make it a truth. Christians in the middle ages preferred to see some women as witches and burn them. This shared agreement did not make the women witches.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> My rejection of your thesis is that you cannot explain the popularity of Furtwängler. He saw a truth beyond the score, and others including myself see it too. That is proof of its existence. Otherwise no one would care about Furtwängler..


You argument here is bascially a negative one: you can't explain X without assuming Y. Like, 'you can't explain belief in God without assuming God exists'. In this case, its 'you can't explain why Furtwangler is popular without assuming he was in contact with some kind of 'musical truth' that goes beyond the score'.

But you _can_ explain why Furtwangler is popular without needing to bring in dubious metaphysical notions like objective musical truth beyond the score. This is the crux of the argument. So let's focus on this.

I can explain why Furtwangler is popular by invoking *shared musical preferences* for certain kinds of performances: performances which are flexible, which contain rubato, etc etc. No need for loaded metaphysical notions which, unfortunately, bring with them connotations of 'better' and 'worse' (despite your assertions otherwise, normative judgement is simply a FACT about the conventional meaning of objective truth - if you make claims that some assertion, musical or not, is approaching objective truth, then conflicting claims must have something wrong with them).


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I can't see this as an answer to my remarks, since I wasn't addressing the truth status of value judgments but only their existence and the validity of talking about them, a pursuit for which DavidA seemed to have contempt.


I for one cannot divorce the truth of a claim from the 'validity' of making it!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

"Problems of "technique" are exerting a hypnotic influence on us nowadays, and considerable progress has been made in the examination of its foundation . . . No matter whether it is a question of skiing or of playing the piano, we are in a position today to achieve considerably better results in a short period of time than we were a few decades ago.

The trouble is that, unlike skiers, artists have not become better but worse as far as the decisive point, i.e., the capacity for direct artistic expression, is concerned . . . The result of it all is that art is being deprived more and more of its essence and of its soul, which, to everybody's surprise, seems increasingly superfluous the greater [the art's] technical precision . . . What I dislike and what worries me profoundly is the chasm that has opened up between our knowledge of the technical and that of the "spiritual" aspects of music."

"... to obtain precision, if one beats firmly and clearly, is very simple. But to combine with this firm and clear beat all the other qualities that one wants to and must obtain from the orchestra either a hard sound or a gentle sound, a legato, a staccato, transitions, all there is also a part of a conducting technique.

Everyone's technique is different . . . just as every great violinist has a different tone. When Kreisler plays, whether on a violin or on a wooden box, one knows that it is Kreisler! And it is the same with conductors. When Nikisch began conducting, the sound of the orchestra was at once different from that under any other conductor. Every real conductor has his own individual beat, and this beat influences the entire sound."

"Though Furtwängler was known to be unstinting and thorough in his rehearsals, a member of the Vienna Philharmonic recalled,[He was not content] with restricting us to the dynamics, but was especially interested in the essential mood of a work, in what stood "behind the notes." For this he always found the perfect expression; when he spoke of the "tearless grief" in the slow movement of the Eroica, each of us knew exactly what he meant."


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I for one cannot divorce the truth of a claim from the 'validity' of making it!


But I spoke of value statements, not "claims." People express their values all the time wihout claiming anything, and I find doing so eminently worthwhile. Don't you?

I'm trying to avoid being part of the debate you're having with others here. Don't ruin my pleasure in my Olympian detachment! :tiphat:


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> But I spoke of value statements, not "claims." People express their values all the time wihout claiming anything, and I find doing so eminently worthwhile. Don't you?


Sometimes. At other times I find it problematic to frame mere preferences in terms of 'real values', as I mentioned in my main post to you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> But you _can_ explain why Furtwangler is popular without needing to bring in dubious metaphysical notions like objective musical truth beyond the score. This is the crux of the argument. So let's focus on this.
> 
> I can explain why Furtwangler is popular by invoking *shared musical preferences* for certain kinds of performances: performances which are flexible, which contain rubato, etc etc. No need for loaded metaphysical notions which, unfortunately, bring with them connotations of 'better' and 'worse' (despite your assertions otherwise normative judgement is simply a FACT about the conventional meaning of objective truth).


So certain people see musical truth in the score, and certain people see musical truth in particular subjective interpretations beyond the score. These are still variations on truth, not different tastes in ice cream.

Hearing musical truth in Furtwängler's interpretations is not the same as believing or not believing in God. That's an apples and oranges comparison. The question is how should a piece of music go. And we all disagree on that. But what we don't disagree on is there does in the abstract exist an idea of how the piece should go. Otherwise why would we be debating the subject?

But there is more to it than that. When I hear a conductor like Toscanini, Reiner, or Szell maintaining a predictable tempo and not venturing too far from conventional interpretation, I can hear what they are doing. There is no mystery about it for anyone who has attended music school. They are playing the music according to a taught script of how music is to be performed.

Furtwängler goes beyond this. But...is he going off on an individual tangent, or is he actually _expanding_ the script? Our argument is that he is not merely playing in a style that people like, but he is doing things that are just as intrinsic to the music as the notes on the page. Just as real, just as true. And what he does can be broken down, analyzed, and explained. It's not just random. Furtwängler is ALSO following a script! The question is where does this script come from?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Sometimes. At other times I find it problematic to frame mere preferences in terms of 'real values', as I mentioned in my main post to you.


You don't have to reply, but FYI, this issue of "preference" and "value" is mathematically formalized and resolved in (evolutionary) Game Theory. If this bugs you a lot, you might want to read into that.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Sometimes. At other times I find it problematic to frame mere preferences in terms of 'values', as I mentioned in my main post to you.


It's only problematic if we mistake our preferred values for universal ones. On the other hand it's interesting to look for factors which tend to make certain things universally valued by human beings - if not absolutely so (since nothing will be valued by everyone all the time), at least substantially or practically so. If we want to call this "shared subjectivity," that's fine. I'm interested in values that are widely shared, and in understanding why they are, especially in the intangible realm of aesthetics. To ignore the special status of widely shared values is to limit our understanding. But understanding is itself one of those "substantially universal" values, hopefully shared by anyone who proposes to talk about art. Lacking it, all we have is people saying "mmmmmmm" after a happy meal. Not much is gained by asking someone what they liked about a slice of pie, but much can be gained by inquiring about the qualities, and debating the merits, of a musical work or performance. Of course, we may or may not value that. I do.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So certain people see musical truth in the score, and certain people see musical truth in particular subjective interpretations beyond the score. These are still variations on truth, not different tastes in ice cream.


There is a clear difference.

Let's assume the general principle that for something to be true, there needs to be an objective _basis_ for this truth. For instance, the basis for the truth of the claim that water is H20 is the atomic structure of water. This basis is objective, in that it is accessible to anyone with the right tools. Similarly, the basis for the truth of the claim 1+1=2 is something more subtle, but everyone knows the truth of this claim when they consider it (you could call this agreement an intersubjective basis for the truth of 1+1=2, where this agreement is much more widepsread than musical agreement, but there is also a more objective basis to mathematical truth: A mathematical system which assumes 1+1=3 [without swapping the meaning of symbols to make '2' mean what '1' used to, for instance] will not get you very far in your incursions into reality. Your rockets will burn up, your computers won't run properly, your medical scripts will kill you).

When it comes to seeing musical truth in the score, the basis for this is a concretely existing score, which can be varifyied by anyone who cares to look at it (and hence objective). But when it comes to seeing musical truth in a particular subjective interpretation beyond the score, there is no basis for this truth beyond subjective preferences. *No objective 'basis' for a truth means no truth at all*.

We're going round in circles as this has been covered before.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> It's only problematic if we mistake our preferred values for universal ones. On the other hand it's interesting to look for factors which tend to make certain things universally valued by human beings - if not absolutely so (since nothing will be valued by everyone all the time), at least substantially or practically so. If we want to call this "shared subjectivity," that's fine. I'm interested in values that are widely shared, and in understanding why they are, especially in the intangible realm of aesthetics. To ignore the special status of widely shared values is to limit our understanding. But understanding is itself one of those "substantially universal" values, hopefully shared by anyone who proposes to talk about art. Lacking it, all we have is people saying "mmmmmmm" after a happy meal. Not much is gained by asking someone what they liked about a slice of pie, but much can be gained by inquiring about the qualities, and debating the merits, of a musical work or performance. Of course, we may or may not value that. I do.


Approaching this question analytically is tremendously difficult if not impossible. In practice, it is enough to use our intuition and empathy to guide us to get a sense of it, without writing it down as some kind of formula or as logical certainty.

The post-industrialized or post-modern sensibility is very different from that of the time during which the great works are composed or these historical recordings are made. Apart from numerous self-refections, many of my younger casual classical music friends show this tendency for standardization and over-analyzing, instead of being immersed in the music and use their intuition to guide them. As if to understand the music is to have some "analytical handles" to it or to be able to take specific measurements of it. The first topic after a recital is often about how many wrong notes there were. There is the fear of the mystery, the unspeakable, and the poetic because these are elusive to the rational intellect. Failure to apply the rational intellect is often deemed as a sign of the lack of intelligence in the current society so the solution is either to over-rationalize or to suppress how they felt.

I don't think such sensibility is the product of social learning but rather the symptom of the way we think now - the hegemony of the left brain which focuses on hyper self-awareness, fragmentation, and rationalization.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> But when it comes to seeing musical truth in a particular subjective interpretation beyond the score, there is no basis for this truth beyond subjective preferences. *No objective 'basis' for a truth means no truth at all*


This fails to explain Furtwängler. Obviously he was on to something to have obtained the following he has, both in his meteoric rise to head of the BPO and in his enduring popularity in recordings. There has to be an explanation for that phenomenon. Something in the music. A truth, whether you acknowledge it or not.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> It's only problematic if we mistake our preferred values for universal ones. On the other hand it's interesting to look for factors which tend to make certain things universally valued by human beings - if not absolutely so (since nothing will be valued by everyone all the time), at least substantially or practically so. If we want to call this "shared subjectivity," that's fine. I'm interested in values that are widely shared, and in understanding why they are, especially in the intangible realm of aesthetics. To ignore the special status of widely shared values is to limit our understanding. But understanding is itself one of those "substantially universal" values, hopefully shared by anyone who proposes to talk about art. Lacking it, all we have is people saying "mmmmmmm" after a happy meal. Not much is gained by asking someone what they liked about a slice of pie, but much can be gained by inquiring about the qualities, and debating the merits, of a musical work or performance. Of course, we may or may not value that. I do.


This description is utterly genius and explains why there is at least some basis for calling one work greater than another, one interpretation better than another. As you say "shared subjectivity" is probably a better term for describing this phenomena, but nevertheless, this helped a lot  ! I've got a bad tendency to over-rationalise and often avoid any objective-like statement when it comes to art. Enlightened, again!


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This fails to explain Furtwängler. Obviously he was on to something to have obtained the following he has, both in his meteoric rise to head of the BPO and in his enduring popularity in recordings. There has to be an explanation for that phenomenon. Something in the music. A truth, whether you acknowledge it or not.


Why on earth do you say there has to be a *truth **in the music*, to explain why some subsection of the population likes Furtwangler? I gave you an explanation that accounts for why people like F without invoking 'truth in the music': subjective taste! Why is this not enough for you? It's astounding.

I mean, must there be 'truth' in backrubs to explain why many humans like backrubs? Of course not, people just enjoy backrubs. Just like (some) people like Furtwangler's Beethoven! Of course the reasons for why people like F's Beethoven are different from why people like backrubs, but it's still a matter of preferences/taste.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Why on earth do you say there has to be a *truth **in the music*, to explain why some subsection of the population likes Furtwangler?
> 
> I mean, must there be 'truth' in backrubs to explain why many humans like backrubs?!


Sure! That's the point. Saying the only truth is Allegro con brio and that everything else is pure fantasy is demonstrably false BS.

Glad to see we are in agreement. Can we close this debate now?


----------



## RogerWaters

duplicate post ignore


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Sure! That's the point. Saying the only truth is Allegro con brio and that everything else is pure fantasy is demonstrably false BS.


What's the point? I'm confused.

I think you are demanding a reason for why people have preferences for Furtwangler, and that these preferences must be explained by 'truth in the music'. But just go back to backrubs. What explains why we like backrubs will be something to do with the structure of our muscles and nerves. With preferences for Furtwangler's music, the explanation won't be quite as 'reductive', but it will appeal to stuff like: structure of the human auditory system, including brain, the details of some people's musical development, the fact of having read about the man and taken a liking to him, and a complex host of other reasons. But none of this comes down to 'truth in the music'!


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> There is a clear difference.
> 
> Let's assume the general principle that for something to be true, there needs to be an objective _basis_ for this truth. For instance, the basis for the truth of the claim that water is H20 is the atomic structure of water. This basis is objective, in that it is accessible to anyone with the right tools. Similarly, the basis for the truth of the claim 1+1=2 is something more subtle, but everyone knows the truth of this claim when they consider it (you could call this agreement an intersubjective basis for the truth of 1+1=2, where this agreement is much more widepsread than musical agreement, but there is also a more objective basis to mathematical truth: A mathematical system which assumes 1+1=3 [without swapping the meaning of symbols to make '2' mean what '1' used to, for instance] will not get you very far in your incursions into reality. Your rockets will burn up, your computers won't run properly, your medical scripts will kill you).


So one can't switch the meaning of '1' and '2'? Then you agree that '1' and '2' have intrinsic meaning outside the formal system of mathematics; otherwise, how would you define such a no-switching statement? To be honest, of all things, I never expected you to be a closet Platonist.



RogerWaters said:


> *No objective 'basis' for a truth means no truth at all*.


Have you looked up the works of Kurt Gödel (who was, actually, a mathematical Platonist)? You're either stating a tautology or are going to end up with some very problematic notions of truth.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

BachIsBest said:


> So one can't switch the meaning of '1' and '2'? Then you agree that '1' and '2' have intrinsic meaning outside the formal system of mathematics; otherwise, how would you define such a no-switching statement? To be honest, of all things, I never expected you to be a closet Platonist.
> 
> Have you looked up the works of Kurt Gödel (who was, actually, a mathematical Platonist)? You're either stating a tautology or are going to end up with some very problematic notions of truth.


Finally! My savior! Please talk some sense into Roger! He is having an epistemological crisis on a classical music forum.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> So one can't switch the meaning of '1' and '2'? Then you agree that '1' and '2' have intrinsic meaning outside the formal system of mathematics; otherwise, how would you define such a no-switching statement? To be honest, of all things, I never expected you to be a closet Platonist.


Eh? I didn't mean you can't switch the meaning of numerical symbols. I meant that doing such a switching, such that, in your new notation, 2+2=1 is true because it means the same thing as 1+1=2 in our notation, you won't _actually _have a different mathematical system.

And I say this in defence of my pragmatist defense of mathematical objectivity. If you have a mathematical system in which, in _our_ terminology, 1+1=3, you will fail in your incursions into reality. You won't get anything done.



BachIsBest said:


> Have you looked up the works of Kurt Gödel (who was, actually, a mathematical Platonist)? You're either stating a tautology or are going to end up with some very problematic notions of truth.


Again, not sure what you're getting at. I'd be happy to be stating a tautology by saying 'no objective basis for a truth means no truth at all'! I think it's Brahmsianhorn you should be directing this complaint to!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> What's the point? I'm confused.
> 
> I think you are demanding a reason for why people have preferences for Furtwangler, and that these preferences must be explained by 'truth in the music'. But just go back to backrubs. What explains why we like backrubs will be something to do with the structure of our muscles and nerves. With preferences for Furtwangler's music, the explanation won't be quite as 'reductive', but it will appeal to stuff like: structure of the human auditory system, including brain, the details of some people's musical development, the fact of having read about the man and taken a liking to him, and a complex host of other reasons. But none of this comes down to 'truth in the music'!


Look, there is truth in what Furtwangler did, and there is truth in what Toscanini did. Otherwise they wouldn't be remembered today as arguably the two biggest conducting giants in recorded history.

How about a taste test. I said earlier that to me it sounds like Toscanini just barrels straight through the big climax in Wagner's Liebestod. I have both conductors cued up to the same spot in the below links. Tell what you think, TC. Who sounds more natural? Who sounds more idiosyncratic? Are they both equally valid? Is Toscanini truly being "objective?" Is Furtwangler truly being "subjective?"

EDIT: well shoot, the copy video URL at current time didn't work apparently! It is 13:45 for Toscanini and 16:00 for Furtwangler.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look, there is truth in what Furtwangler did, and there is truth in what Toscanini did. Otherwise they wouldn't be remembered today as arguably the two biggest conducting giants in recorded history.


Do you mean 'truth in what Furtwangler did' in the same sense as you mean 'truth in what Joe did giving Jane a backrub', or something more metaphysically loaded like the music expressing a truth?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Do you mean 'truth in what Furtwangler did' in the same sense as you mean 'truth in what Joe did giving Jane a backrub', or something more metaphysically loaded like the music expressing a truth?


That it connected with people, which is why the work is performed in the first place. Really? Is this so hard?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That it connected with people, which is why the work is performed in the first place. Really? Is this so hard?


So by 'truth in music', you mean music connecting with people? That's not hard to believe. However, sport also connects with people, would you say there is 'truth in sport'? Or 'Truth in nice cars' and 'truth in pornography'?

If so, then fine. I wouldn't use the word 'truth' in the same way - as...

1. niether music nor sport nor cars nor porn express claims, and so aren't candidates for being 'true' or 'false' in the first place
2. you can explain why people enjoy the above without appealing to 'truth', which has polemic connotations, as evinced by the existence of these topics on TC.

...however, it's better to agree on what we disagree about (terms) rather than having no agreement at all.


----------



## BachIsBest

RogerWaters said:


> Eh? I didn't mean you can't switch the meaning of numerical symbols. I meant that doing such a switching, such that, in your new notation, 2+2=1 is true because it means the same thing as 1+1=2 in our notation, you won't _actually _have a different mathematical system.
> 
> And I say this in defence of my pragmatist defense of mathematical objectivity. If you have a mathematical system in which, in _our_ terminology, 1+1=3, you will fail in your incursions into reality. You won't get anything done.


My point was about the definition of switching. There is a way to get around my objections, but you don't seem to be arguing in that vein but rather appear to be adopting the Platonic viewpoint; not that I disagree with this (I'm a mathematical Platonist myself), but it just seems to be in contradiction to your previously stated viewpoints on the nature of objective truth.



RogerWaters said:


> Again, not sure what you're getting at. I'd be happy to be stating a tautology by saying 'no objective basis for a truth means no truth at all'!


My point was that, to put a famous statement very imprecisely, there is no precise objective basis for arithmetic. So if you're stating that you need to be able to precisely define something objectively for it to be objectively true, then 1+1=2 is not true (which is a weird notion of truth).

On the other hand, if you were merely saying that for something to be objectively true, it needs to be objective, then this is a tautology as something is objectively true if and only if (by anyone definition) it is objective and true as such.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look, there is truth in what Furtwangler did, and there is truth in what Toscanini did. Otherwise they wouldn't be remembered today as arguably the two biggest conducting giants in recorded history.
> 
> How about a taste test. I said earlier that to me it sounds like Toscanini just barrels straight through the big climax in Wagner's Liebestod. I have both conductors cued up to the same spot in the below links. Tell what you think, TC. Who sounds more natural? Who sounds more idiosyncratic? Are they both equally valid? Is Toscanini truly being "objective?" Is Furtwangler truly being "subjective?"
> 
> EDIT: well shoot, the copy video URL at current time didn't work apparently! It is 13:45 for Toscanini and 16:00 for Furtwangler.


At last some music and not just words! Without having heard the entirety of these performances (which would be the only way to be completely fair here), I would say tentatively that Furtwangler makes a bit more of the final pages of the "Liebestod" than Toscanini, particularly _after _the climax. But I think an even better point of comparison is the prelude, and the way that Furtwangler gathers and releases the tension with an almost unbearable intensity (which I expected here, since I know his performance on EMI's complete _Tristan_). This was one of his special gifts as a musician; his climaxes could accumulate great force, and were often scorchingly, demonically intense. In this music his ability to accomplish this is exactly what the music calls for. I've heard innumerable performances of the _Tristan_ prelude, some of them as interesting as Furtwangler's or even more interesting in certain details, and very valid and persuasive on their own terms, but I've heard no one who can build the tension and make it break over the climax like a river over a waterfall with such naturalness and such crushing force as he does.

As far as "subjectivity" versus "objectivity" is concerned, someone is perfectly entitled to a subjective preference for any performance over any other, but there is a clear intentionality present in the shape of Wagner's prelude, an unmistakable portrayal of longing and striving stretched to the point where it can only collapse into itself, and the dynamic curve with which Wagner conveys this is clearly grasped by Furtwangler and projected with as much force and fullness as I can imagine. Whether anyone wants to question the objectivity of this judgment is a matter of tedious indifference to me. I know what I hear, and in fifty years of listening to this music I have never heard its essential quality and dynamic curve projected as well.


----------



## RogerWaters

BachIsBest said:


> My point was about the definition of switching. There is a way to get around my objections, but you don't seem to be arguing in that vein but rather appear to be adopting the Platonic viewpoint; not that I disagree with this (I'm a mathematical Platonist myself), but it just seems to be in contradiction to your previously stated viewpoints on the nature of objective truth.
> 
> My point was that, to put a famous statement very imprecisely, there is no precise objective basis for arithmetic. So if you're stating that you need to be able to precisely define something objectively for it to be objectively true, then 1+1=2 is not true (which is a weird notion of truth).
> 
> On the other hand, if you were merely saying that for something to be objectively true, it needs to be objective, then this is a tautology as something is objectively true if and only if (by anyone definition) it is objective and true as such.


All I was trying to express is that there is enough 'objectivity' to mathematics such that it's not _merely _intersubjective. My 'guage' of this is pragmatic: try conducting a space program on the assumption that 1 thing, and 1 other thing, means you have three things. You won't get far, even if everyone assents to the idea that 1 thing and another 1 thing results in three things. Similar with a medical program, or an engineering program.

The point of all this, is simply that all truths need some basis that makes them true. And this basis had better be objective - in other words not simply subjective (nor intersubjective) preference. In the case of mathematics, this basis is pragmatic: success or failure. I don't suppose this will settle the matter for branches of mathematics which could never have real-world application.

I think this is moving too far away from the main issue, though, which is the fact that there is no basis for musical truth (not even intersubjective agreement - as people disagree about music much more than most mathematics), hence no such thing as musical truth. Truth requires a truth-maker, to put it differently.

But, for Pete's sake, I don't even think music is a candidate for _ being_ true or false in the first place. Music doesn't make claims, except in very minimal cases and even in those cases in a very minimal sense - when it is replicating the generic sound of a thunderstorm, or something.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look, there is truth in what Furtwangler did, and there is truth in what Toscanini did. Otherwise they wouldn't be remembered today as arguably the two biggest conducting giants in recorded history.
> 
> How about a taste test. I said earlier that to me it sounds like Toscanini just barrels straight through the big climax in Wagner's Liebestod. I have both conductors cued up to the same spot in the below links. Tell what you think, TC. Who sounds more natural? Who sounds more idiosyncratic? Are they both equally valid? Is Toscanini truly being "objective?" Is Furtwangler truly being "subjective?"
> 
> EDIT: well shoot, the copy video URL at current time didn't work apparently! It is 13:45 for Toscanini and 16:00 for Furtwangler.


It puzzles me that we must go all this line as if we are in a 'search for truth'. We are not in a search for truth we are listening to a piece of music and we are thinking about what interpretation of that music we prefer. Quite simple. I do not search for truth in music and particularly not in the music of Richard Wagner or any other kind of opera because opera us fiction not truth. So it may be better just to say which interpretation you prefer instead of all these high blown phrases which mean nothing?
I believe it that it Klermperer who once described Walter as a 'moralist' as a conductor and himself as 'immoralist'. Just two different styles.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> because opera us fiction not truth.


I'm no fan of opera myself, but I can see quite clearly that it deals in 'truths' about life, death, love, betrayal, obsession, adultery...

It's not just the stock-in-trade of opera, but of most 'fiction'. It's the whole point of fiction, to spin a yarn and get to the truths of existence.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> I'm no fan of opera myself, but I can see quite clearly that it deals in 'truths' about life, death, love, betrayal, obsession, adultery...
> 
> It's not just the stock-in-trade of opera, but of most 'fiction'. It's the whole point of fiction, to spin a yarn and get to the truths of existence.


So every novel you read you consider a deep traversal of the truths of life, death, betrayal. etc..?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> So every novel you read you consider a deep traversal of the truths of life, death, betrayal. etc..?


Of course. I'm very selective about the novels I read. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Of course. I'm very selective about the novels I read. :lol:


You would need to be very selective about the operas you see too! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> It puzzles me that we must go all this line as if we are in a 'search for truth'. We are not in a search for truth we are listening to a piece of music and we are thinking about what interpretation of that music we prefer. Quite simple. I do not search for truth in music and particularly not in the music of Richard Wagner or any other kind of opera because opera us fiction not truth. So it may be better just to say which interpretation you prefer instead of all these high blown phrases which mean nothing?
> I believe it that it Klermperer who once described Walter as a 'moralist' as a conductor and himself as 'immoralist'. Just two different styles.


So are you saying then that when a conductor interprets a piece of music, he is doing so without any purpose? He is just randomly deciding how it should go?

What about a conductor who plays a work hundreds of times. Does he say, "Hey everyone, today let's play it twice as fast for the sake of variety. Tomorrow we'll use modern instruments and lots of rubato. Then on Sunday we'll switch to HIP."

The point is that when a conductor lays down an interpretation, he is stating his truth of how the music should go. He may see it as set in stone, or he may see it as something that he is perfecting each time. But he does not see it as random decisions. He has a goal, to communicate the music in the most effective way possible. That goal represents the pursuit of truth in the music. This is all I have been saying this entire time.

The truth does not exist in cement. It exists in the abstract as an ideal that we strive for. There is nothing controversial about this. It is simply stating reality.


----------



## wkasimer

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Or maybe you are just trolling,


I think that's become blindingly obvious.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For a performer to be taken seriously as an interpreter, execution is only the starting point, not the end. The performer has to know composers and it's cultural environment as much as possible, and delve into the tradition of performance practices.


None of which establishes any sort of extra-musical, metaphysical, philosophical "truth" to be apprehended by the performer.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So Heck, here is the absolute crux of this whole matter. Does the music really speak for itself?


Yes, it does. 
It does not require, or necessarily indicate some extra-musical, philosophical "plane", or ultimate "truth" to be apprehended by the performer.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So are you saying then that when a conductor interprets a piece of music, he is doing so without any purpose? He is just randomly deciding how it should go?
> 
> What about a conductor who plays a work hundreds of times. Does he say, "Hey everyone, today let's play it twice as fast for the sake of variety. Tomorrow we'll use modern instruments and lots of rubato. Then on Sunday we'll switch to HIP."
> 
> The point is that when a conductor lays down an interpretation, he is stating his truth of how the music should go. He may see it as set in stone, or he may see it as something that he is perfecting each time. But he does not see it as random decisions. He has a goal, to communicate the music in the most effective way possible. That goal represents the pursuit of truth in the music. This is all I have been saying this entire time.
> 
> The truth does not exist in cement. It exists in the abstract as an ideal that we strive for. There is nothing controversial about this. It is simply stating reality.


Oh for goodness sake at last you're saying that instead of some philosophical waffle. At least we agree on that!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> None of which establishes any sort of extra-musical, metaphysical, philosophical "truth" to be apprehended by the performer.


The truth is the interpretation itself, how successful it is in communicating the music.

What you are referring to as "extra-musical" is anything we use as an aid in interpretation beyond what is written down in the score. You are wrong about this. The score cannot tell us the whole story. You know this yourself. You use terms like "supple phrasing." Is "supple phrasing" written in the score? No, it is part of the interpretation.

But ah, you might say, supple phrasing is musical. Napolean is not. Baloney. When you use imagery you are GUIDING the musical decisions toward an interpretive purpose. No one, not even Toscanini, is roboticly repeating verbatim what the score says. There are a myriad of interpretive decisions being made. When you conduct opera, obviously there are words, so you do not have to think too hard to understand what the music is about. The words inform your interpretation. The notes and rhythms are not enough. In instrumental music, we do not have the benefit of a clear text. We have to decipher what the music means.


----------



## JAS

DavidA said:


> Oh for goodness sake at last you're saying that instead of some philosophical waffle. . . .


Philosophy tends to be all about the waffle. (Personally, I prefer French Toast.)


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> It puzzles me that we must go all this line as if we are in a 'search for truth'. We are not in a search for truth we are listening to a piece of music and we are thinking about what interpretation of that music we prefer. Quite simple. I do not search for truth in music and particularly not in the music of Richard Wagner or any other kind of opera because opera us fiction not truth. So it may be better just to say which interpretation you prefer instead of all these high blown phrases which mean nothing?
> I believe it that it Klermperer who once described Walter as a 'moralist' as a conductor and himself as 'immoralist'. Just two different styles.


A lot of opera and books reveal some aspect, a "truth" if you may, about human nature and human relationships. One could argue that a composer can fake all that but that's not the goal of opera (why not write pure music then?) and I even doubt whether any of the composers has managed to write an opera which isn't connected to real life, real relationships and presentations of human nature. The thematic material has to go through composer's perception before he does anything with it. He cannot present it without a human aspect because he, who is writing it, is human. A piece of art doesn't have to be thoroughly moral to convey a quality of human nature or society.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> A lot of opera and books reveal some aspect, a "truth" if you may, about human nature and human relationships. One could argue that a composer can fake all that but that's not the goal of opera (why not write pure music then?) and I even doubt whether any of the composers has managed to write an opera which isn't connected to real life, real relationships and presentations of human nature. The thematic material has to go through composer's perception before he does anything with it. He cannot present it without a human aspect because he, who is writing it, is human. A piece of art doesn't have to be thoroughly moral to convey a quality of human nature or society.


Yes I will grant what you say. What I do go against is when people write great tomes about the philosophy of certain operas and whatever. Come on, they are operas. They are there to entertain not teach me huge truths about life. I've been all over the world and seen life in the raw and Unimaginable poverty and children starving on rubbish tips and the results of civil war and people killing each other. I don't need the privileged and eiltist world of opera to teach me 'deep' truths as I sit in a comfortable seat watching fiction.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I don't need the privileged and eiltist world of opera to teach me 'deep' truths as I sit in a comfortable seat watching fiction.


The "truth" is the extent to which the opera depicts that to which we can relate to as humans. It can be dramatic, or it can be comedic. I submit that if we cannot relate to it, we wouldn't find it entertaining.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The "truth" is the extent to which the opera depicts that to which we can relate to as humans. It can be dramatic, or it can be comedic. I submit that if we cannot relate to it, we wouldn't find it entertaining.


Of course we can find it entertaining. That is just the point of it. But we don't seek great truth in it. Like the great lady who went to see the play about poor people and came out moved to tears, not noticing in the process that her coachman was frozen to death in the cold. Truth is what moves us to actually do something about something only if we believe it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I've been all over the world and seen life in the raw and Unimaginable poverty and children starving on rubbish tips and the results of civil war and people killing each other.


Well, for those fortunate enough not to have faced such hardships, fiction might have to suffice as a place to go to learn about 'truths'.

In the meantime, if you've only ever got 'entertainment' from fiction, and not any kind of 'truth' as well, then I can only observe that your enjoyment of fiction has been somewhat superficial.

If, on the other hand, some of the fiction you've encountered _has _done more for you than just entertain, then your posting is merely argumentative.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Of course we can find it entertaining. That is just the point of it. But we don't seek great truth in it.


Our job in the audience is not to seek truth. That is the task of the composer and the performers. We evaluate the extent to which they succeeded.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Yes I will grant what you say. What I do go against is when people write great tomes about the philosophy of certain operas and whatever. Come on, they are operas. They are there to entertain not teach me huge truths about life. I've been all over the world and seen life in the raw and Unimaginable poverty and children starving on rubbish tips and the results of civil war and people killing each other. I don't need the privileged and eiltist world of opera to teach me 'deep' truths as I sit in a comfortable seat watching fiction.


I love analysing Wagner for example because I knew he meant his operas to be great works of art and not a mere entertainment. That's my opinion at least. He could have used a librettist or could have written pure music instead, but he didn't. Similarly to how I analyse Wagner, I also analyse Dostoevsky and Hemingway. Nothing wrong with analysing a work of art. People analyse Kandinsky's paintings... - that needs perseverance!


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Our job in the audience is not to seek truth. That is the task of the composer and the performers. We evaluate the extent to which they succeeded.


We cannot really evaluate the extent because we would need a reference, in this case the real "truth" for that, which at least I don't have. I think different performers spot different aspects in the same work - they can all contribute to my own understanding though.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> We cannot really evaluate the extent because we would need a reference, *in this case the real "truth" for that, which at least I don't have*. I think different performers spot different aspects in the same work - they can all contribute to my own understanding though.


No, no, a thousand times no!

There is NO SUCH THING as the "real truth" written in stone. The truth is revealed in the way and extent to which we respond to what is being performed. Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> It puzzles me that we must go all this line as if we are in a 'search for truth'. We are not in a search for truth we are listening to a piece of music and we are thinking about what interpretation of that music we prefer. Quite simple. I do not search for truth in music and particularly not in the music of Richard Wagner or any other kind of opera because opera us fiction not truth. So it may be better just to say which interpretation you prefer instead of all these high blown phrases which mean nothing?
> I believe it that it Klermperer who once described Walter as a 'moralist' as a conductor and himself as 'immoralist'. Just two different styles.


If you are incapable of finding anything more in art than a sensation of pleasure, such as one would derive from fast food, casual sex, or a ride in an amusement park, have at it. You present an amusing demonstration of pride in your own limitations, and an incredible snobbery in your insistence that others are defective in failing to share them.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, no, a thousand times no!
> 
> There is NO SUCH THING as the "real truth" written in stone. The truth is revealed in the way and extent to which we respond to what is being performed. Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!


I see what you meant now  !


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> I love analysing Wagner for example because I knew he meant his operas to be great works of art and not a mere entertainment. That's my opinion at least. He could have used a librettist or could have written pure music instead, but he didn't. Similarly to how I analyse Wagner, I also analyse Dostoevsky and Hemingway. Nothing wrong with analysing a work of art. People analyse Kandinsky's paintings... - that needs perseverance!


But some of us don't find in Wagner great truth. Neither in Hemmingway.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> If you are incapable of finding anything more in art than a sensation of pleasure, such as one would derive from fast food, casual sex, or a ride in an amusement park, have at it. You present an amusing demonstration of pride in your own limitations, and an incredible snobbery in your insistence that others are defective in failing to share them.


Thank you!!! The most Orwellian aspect of this whole discussion has been those deriding others as "portentous" simultaneously claiming that they are not the ones being snobs themselves.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Well, for those fortunate enough not to have faced such hardships, fiction might have to suffice as a place to go to learn about 'truths'.
> 
> In the meantime, if you've only ever got 'entertainment' from fiction, and not any kind of 'truth' as well, then I can only observe that your enjoyment of fiction has been somewhat superficial.
> 
> If, on the other hand, some of the fiction you've encountered _has _done more for you than just entertain, then your posting is merely argumentative.


yes I grant you I over-stated my case. What I was reacting against is the guy who philosophises from the comfort of an armchair of a seat in the theatre without ever actually having experienced anything of the world's troubles. Very easy to do and then kid ourselves we are being virtuous. It is just not so. It's when you come face-to-face with the real thing that it hits you.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> But some of us don't find in Wagner great truth. Neither in Hemmingway.


To be clear, I'm not talking about some religious or philosophical truth, rather a good representation of human nature and society. Hemingway gives a stunning and somewhat depressing description of the post-war society in _The sun also rises_, while Wagner goes in-depth when analysing the journey of human progression and its dynamics. I wouldn't appreciate neither as much as I do if I hadn't knowingly analysed them.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> yes I grant you I over-stated my case.


Thanks.



DavidA said:


> hat I was reacting against is the guy who philosophises from the comfort of an armchair of a seat in the theatre without ever actually having experienced anything of the world's troubles.


Which guy is that? You seemed to be railing against an individual or two here at TC, not some imagined individual in the theatre.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Which guy is that? You seemed to be railing against an individual or two here at TC, not some imagined individual in the theatre.


I claim the fifth amendment! :lol:

In any case I rail against no-one. Just hold certain people's railings in mild amusement!


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What you are referring to as "extra-musical" is anything we use as an aid in interpretation beyond what is written down in the score.


that is not what I am saying.



> "Is "supple phrasing" written in the score? No, it is part of the interpretation.


phrasing is most certainly a musical consideration. Has nothing to do with "Napoleon" or any non-musical, pseudo-mystical philosophical constructs.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> phrasing is most certainly a musical consideration. Has nothing to do with "Napoleon" or any non-musical, pseudo-mystical philosophical constructs.


Why don't you include the entire quote where I conveniently already anticipated your answer and refuted it?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The truth is the interpretation itself, how successful it is in communicating the music.
> 
> What you are referring to as "extra-musical" is anything we use as an aid in interpretation beyond what is written down in the score. You are wrong about this. The score cannot tell us the whole story. You know this yourself. You use terms like "supple phrasing." Is "supple phrasing" written in the score? No, it is part of the interpretation.
> 
> *But ah, you might say, supple phrasing is musical. Napolean is not. Baloney. When you use imagery you are GUIDING the musical decisions toward an interpretive purpose. No one, not even Toscanini, is roboticly repeating verbatim what the score says. There are a myriad of interpretive decisions being made. When you conduct opera, obviously there are words, so you do not have to think too hard to understand what the music is about. The words inform your interpretation. The notes and rhythms are not enough. In instrumental music, we do not have the benefit of a clear text. We have to decipher what the music means.*


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck, I now have the clear answer to the issue. You and Toscanini and Co. define "musical" as anything that can be generically applied to any piece of music - notes, rhythms, dynamics, phrasing, etc. What you DENY is the existence of anything that is considered UNIQUELY INTRINSIC to the CHARACTER of the specific piece you are playing. You call that "extra-musical." So the unearthed truth is that you are operating from a philosophy of SIMPLE EFFICIENCY. There is no need to think more deeply about what makes a particular piece interesting. Such talk is nonsense in your book. The problem is you cannot explain away the people who have ventured and SUCCEEDED in telling more of the story. You cannot explain away the people who desire more than just the simple generic nuts and bolts of the written score.

This is what is missing from the performances of the objectivists. This is why people get excited and moved by hearing the breadth of fresh air that a conductor like Furtwangler brings.

Last year I did an exhaustive survey of Scheherazade recordings. This was my reaction to Reiner:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Reiner (1960) (RCA) (****1/2) - Arguably the most celebrated modern recording, particularly among audiophiles. However, on my list it falls short of that acclaim. No doubt the playing and sound quality are spectacular. *However, despite its brilliance I get the feeling that this could be a performance of any orchestral work. Everything is done with great efficiency, but I fail to hear the sensuous spirit of Scheherazade come through as it does with those listed above*.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, I now have the clear answer to the issue. You and Toscanini and Co. define "musical" as anything that can be generically applied to any piece of music - notes, rhythms, dynamics, phrasing, etc. What you DENY is the existence of anything that is considered UNIQUELY INTRINSIC to the CHARACTER of the specific piece you are playing. You call that "extra-musical." So the unearthed truth is that you are operating from a philosophy of SIMPLE EFFICIENCY. There is no need to think more deeply about what makes a particular piece interesting. Such talk is nonsense in your book. The problem is you cannot explain away the people who have ventured and SUCCEEDED in telling more of the story. You cannot explain away the people who desire more than just the simple generic nuts and bolts of the written score.
> 
> This is what is MISSING from the performances of the objectivists. This is why people get excited and moved by hearing the breadth of fresh air that a conductor like Furtwangler brings.
> 
> Last year I did an exhaustive survey of Scheherazade recordings. This was my reaction to Reiner:


Ah Scheherazade! A Furtwangler speciality! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, no, a thousand times no!
> 
> There is NO SUCH THING as the "real truth" written in stone. The truth is revealed in the way and extent to which we respond to what is being performed. Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!


See Deuteronomy 4:13


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is what is missing from the performances of the objectivists. This is why people get excited and moved by hearing the breadth of fresh air that a conductor like Furtwangler brings.
> 
> Last year I did an exhaustive survey of Scheherazade recordings. This was my reaction to Reiner:


I have to disagree with you here, BH, Reiner's Scheherazade is amazing, especially when the music is already fantastical and sensuous itself.

I have to add that the impression that Toscanini is more faithful to the score than Furtwangler is simply false. Furtwangler was much more careful and observant when reading Beethoven's score than Toscanini (especially when Furtwangler didn't make studio recordings of Beethoven).


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is NO SUCH THING as the "real truth" written in stone. The truth is revealed in the way and extent to which we respond to what is being performed. Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!


Do you mean that, in so far as truth is relevant to a musical performance, simply that it's a fact/truth that _we have subjective reactions to said performance_ (like it's a fact/truth that we have subjective reactions, to, say, a sitcom or a sporting match?).

If this is all you mean, then I don't know what we've been arguing about for so long.

Keen for your thoughts on my last post to you, though, to clear this up for good.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> See Deuteronomy 4:13


Deuteronomy 4:13:"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone."

Eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt keep thy brain's enslavement to five thousand-year-old cult literature to thyself and off the pages of this forum."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Do you mean that, in so far as truth is relevant to a musical performance, simply that it's a fact/truth that _we have subjective reactions to said performance_ (like it's a fact/truth that we have subjective reactions, to, say, a sitcom or a sporting match?).


No, I don't mean that. You portray subjective reactions as if they are meaningless. I do not. I believe the reactions are the result of some measure of truth imparted by the performance that connects to the listener.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I don't mean that. You portray subjective reactions as if they are meaningless. I do not. I believe the reactions are the result of some measure of truth imparted by the performance that connects to the listener.


Not sure why you think i'm portraying subjective reactions as 'meaningless'. They are meaningful to the individual subject, otherwise they wouldn't keep seeking these subjective reactions out in reaching for the 19XX Furtwangler recording of Symphony X!

On the one hand you say something which makes it sound like you aren't invoking something mysterious, like: "Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!". Then you say something metaphysically engorged like this: "reactions are the result of some measure of truth imparted by a performance".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> On the one hand you say something which makes it sound like you aren't invoking something mysterious, like: "Your subjective reaction to the music IS the truth!". Then you say something metaphysically engorged like this: "reactions are the result of some measure of truth imparted by a performance".


I don't see those statements as mutually exclusive


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't see those statements as mutually exclusive


Ok. Let me ask you: do you see a possible difference between music causing _a reaction_ in us which gives us lofty _feelings of truth_, on the one hand, and music actually imparting truth, on the other? I'm not saying one or the other is the case, just wondering whether you've ever thought of this distinction, and what you make of it? Does the distinction make conceptual sense to you in the abstract, even if you rule one or the other out in this case?


----------



## Guest

I don't have a fascination with Toscanini, but I did previously say that I had his Beethoven cycle with the New York Phil. I was wrong. I have his cycle with the NBC Sym.

I was listening to the 2nd movement this morning, and really enjoyed the fast pace. Alas, the recording seemed to swamp the bassoon in its few moments of glory, and the horns blared like something out of John Barry or John Williams. At least, I assumed it was the fault of the recording...?

Now I can hear the horns doing the same on the Furtwangler 1944 Eroica. Is this horn playing something favoured by the older generation of conductors, by the players themselves...or is it just my ears?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> I don't have a fascination with Toscanini, but I did previously say that I had his Beethoven cycle with the New York Phil. I was wrong. I have his cycle with the NBC Sym.
> 
> I was listening to the 2nd movement this morning, and really enjoyed the fast pace. Alas, the recording seemed to swamp the bassoon in its few moments of glory, and the horns blared like something out of John Barry or John Williams. At least, I assumed it was the fault of the recording...?
> 
> Now I can hear the horns doing the same on the Furtwangler 1944 Eroica. Is this horn playing something favoured by the older generation of conductors, by the players themselves...or is it just my ears?


It might have something to do with Weingartner's writing on Beethoven (of which both Toscanini and Furtwangler were aware). I know that Beethoven had some wrong "orchestration" by replacing the horns with the bassoons in the 9th so this might be related.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why don't you include the entire quote where I conveniently already anticipated your answer and refuted it?


You refute nothing.



> The truth is the interpretation itself, how successful it is in communicating the music.


Which has nothing to do with, nor does it posit the existence of some sort of extra-musical, metaphysical construct.



> What you are referring to as "extra-musical" is anything we use as an aid in interpretation beyond what is written down in the score.


No, not what I'm saying. obviously, phrasing, style, performance tradition are all key components in musical interpretation. What I'm saying is that communing with abstract non-musical concept is not requisite for validly performing or enjoying Beethoven's "Eroica".


> The score cannot tell us the whole story. You know this yourself. You use terms like "supple phrasing." Is "supple phrasing" written in the score? No, it is part of the interpretation.


Again, this has nothing to do with apprehending some esoteric, "pie-in-the-sky" philosophical concept. Phrasing and style can be very readily discerned from the score, to a competent performer.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, I now have the clear answer to the issue.


Negative, you do not have a clear answer at all. it is all garbled nonsense.

This idea of an extra-musical, pseudo-philosophical, esoteric concept above and beyond the music is unsupportable - it certainly cannot be proven scientifically or empirically, therefore, it can be regarded as unnecessary, even superfluous to actual musical performance. I am not referring to specific programmatic intent by the composer, but rather some imagined, non-musical, metaphysical entity which supposedly hovers above and separate from the music itself.
Sloppy execution, ragged ensemble, lack of precision, in pursuit of this imagined objective of non-musical metaphysical "truth" is generally considered a negative attribute of performance. The composer's score certainly directs, indicates that notes should be sounded in rhythmic precision. [unless marked specifically random, or aleatoric]

The performance and enjoyment of music is in no way dependent upon any such imaginary, extra-musical concepts. It is perfectly possible for a listener to enjoy Beethoven's "Eroica" for its melodies, harmonic progressions, rhythmic vitality, it's drama, sonic excitement; without "apprehending" Beethoven's <<cosmic concept of Napoleon as a world figure>> whatever that might be?? The music can speak for itself.

Now - If the listener wishes to attach extra-musical content to a piece of music…fine!! The listener is free to create any association he/she sees fit - overall spiritual concept, specific ideal, or any programmatic impression whatever….really anything that enhances the listener's enjoyment is completely fine, to be encouraged….it is the enjoyment of the music which is paramount. If the listener always thinks of brilliant sunrise in a certain passage?? Great!! Enjoy the sunrise…

But, it is not the performer's function, nor is it possible, to apply some sort of extra-musical, hypothetical "truth" to the music [ie - <<_play this passage like Beethoven's concept of Napoleon!!...um...what??_>>…It is the performer's duty to accurately present the work - precisely, expressively, based upon the actual score. Of course, proper interpretation is going to include style, phrasing, dynamics, attention to melodic/harmonic flow, timbral variation, performance practice, etc….all of these are direct musical concerns. None of these are dependent upon the apprehension, the capture by the performer, of some imaginary, extra-musical "truth".


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> You refute nothing.


I've destroyed every one of your arguments.



Heck148 said:


> Which has nothing to do with, nor does it posit the existence of some sort of extra-musical, metaphysical construct.


One of the issues here is you use grandiose straw man terms to artificially accentuate your argument. Tying the written score to the human emotion and experience is not metaphysical. Furtwangler describing the Marcia funebre as "tearless grief" is not metaphysical. The "truth" I am talking about is when you see the unique essence of the music, you let that guide your interpretation of the music, and the audience responds. You are denying the validity of this approach, which is simplistic and short-sighted, not to mention ignorant.



Heck148 said:


> No, not what I'm saying. obviously, phrasing, style, performance tradition are all key components in musical interpretation. What I'm saying is that communing with abstract non-musical concept is not requisite for validly performing or enjoying Beethoven's "Eroica".


What you are talking about is generic musical concepts taught to trained monkeys in music conservatories. What I am talking about is the unique character of a particular work that a competent interpreter recognizes and communicates as opposed to denying the existence of.



Heck148 said:


> Again, this has nothing to do with apprehending some esoteric, "pie-in-the-sky" philosophical concept. Phrasing and style can be very readily discerned from the score, to a competent performer.


Likewise the communal truth of shared human emotion and experience can readily be discerned from the score....to a competent performer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The question that arises from all this is why would anyone want to "dumb down" great works of art? Why would anyone want to strip them of their essence? Why would anyone want to truncate exploration of the meaning of music? What is the point of efficiency as opposed to communication and expression of the soul? Who does this serve? What is meant by educating audiences as opposed to striving to connect with them?

I think Mrs. Arnold Schoenberg provides the answer:

"So I shall erect to him a monument in my heart and forget the already forgotten Toscanini. Because Furtwängler tried to serve Art and not let Art serve him."

The point of music is not to celebrate the greatness and ability of the performer. The point of music is to communicate the greatness of the human soul.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The question that arises from all this is why would anyone want to "dumb down" great works of art? Why would anyone want to strip them of their essence? Why would anyone want to truncate exploration of the meaning of music? What is the point of efficiency as opposed to communication and expression of the soul? Who does this serve? What is meant by educating audiences as opposed to striving to connect with them?
> 
> I think Mrs. Arnold Schoenberg provides the answer:
> 
> "So I shall erect to him a monument in my heart and forget the already forgotten Toscanini. Because Furtwängler tried to serve Art and not let Art serve him."
> 
> The point of music is not to celebrate the greatness and ability of the performer. The point of music is to communicate the greatness of the human soul.


For crying out loud, who has forgotten Toscanini?. His art can be seen in a whole generation of conductors. The greatest tribute to him is that you can hear his art today when music is conducted. He revolutionised the art of conducting. That is his monument not the pious words talked by Mrs Schoenberg


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'll add another personal anecdote. Decades ago I had the opportunity to know the widow of Walter Ducloux, founder of the Austin Opera. Ducloux served as an apprentice at the Lucerne Festival to both Toscanini and Furtwangler.

Here was Mrs. Ducloux's recollection:

"Walter respected Toscanini...but he adored Furtwangler!"

My point in all this discussion is not that Toscanini was worthless. I own dozens of his recordings. He possessed amazing technical ability. And that is worth respect.

But he did not tell the whole story. Why did Furtwangler represent such a breath of fresh air for so many? Because he went beyond the technical to the heart of the music. He reminded us why we listen in the first place.

Music is not about cold discipline and ruthless efficiency. Music is about the human experience.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll add another personal anecdote. Decades ago I had the opportunity to know the widow of Walter Ducloux, founder of the Austin Opera. Ducloux served as an apprentice at the Lucerne Festival to both Toscanini and Furtwangler.
> 
> Here was Mrs. Ducloux's recollection:
> 
> "Walter respected Toscanini...but he adored Furtwangler!"
> 
> My point in all this discussion is not that Toscanini was worthless. I own dozens of his recordings. He possessed amazing technical ability. And that is worth respect.
> 
> But he did not tell the whole story. Why did Furtwangler represent such a breath of fresh air for so many? Because he went beyond the technical to the heart of the music. He reminded us why we listen in the first place.
> 
> *Music is not about cold discipline and ruthless efficiency. Music is about the human experience*.


If you believe Toscanini is about 'cold discipline and ruthless efficiency' then I suggest you get a new pair of ears! Ridiculous statements!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Now - If the listener wishes to attach extra-musical content to a piece of music…fine!! The listener is free to create any association he/she sees fit - overall spiritual concept, specific ideal, or any programmatic impression whatever….really anything that enhances the listener's enjoyment is completely fine, to be encouraged….it is the enjoyment of the music which is paramount. If the listener always thinks of brilliant sunrise in a certain passage?? Great!! Enjoy the sunrise…
> 
> But, it is not the performer's function, nor is it possible, to apply some sort of extra-musical, hypothetical "truth" to the music [ie - <<_play this passage like Beethoven's concept of Napoleon!!...um...what??_>>…It is the performer's duty to accurately present the work - precisely, expressively, based upon the actual score.


Now we are really getting somewhere! I'm glad we can so clearly delineate the battle lines in this discussion.

You are saying that the job of the performer is to DEPERSONALIZE the music. That is the whole point of the objectivist school. Present the score neutrally and impersonally, and allow the listener to make of it what they wish.

What I am saying is that true musical connection is PERSONAL. When you personally identify and present YOUR VERSION of why this piece of music is great, moving, etc., you are allowing real connection to take place with the audience. Because in the end the whole point of enjoying music together is the shared human experience. You say this is metaphysical nonsense. All music can be derided as metaphysical nonsense! Why should we care about a bunch of sounds emitted into the atmosphere? There is nothing concrete and definable about music appreciation to begin with.

Bruno Walter said that a conductor could never conduct Tristan und Isolde if he has never experienced love and passion, or Beethoven's Pastoral if he has never experienced the brook and the meadow. His point is that the performer must tie the music to the human experience to be truly effective in communicating to the audience.

I didn't need to read Toscanini's quote on Napolean to hear for myself that his performances are often mechanical and unfeeling. I already hear that in his recordings. I hear what they are missing. And I didn't need to read Furtwangler's philosophy on spirit over technique to know that his performances were infused with deep feeling and connection to the specific nature of the work he is conducting. I can hear it. I can hear what is present that is missing from Toscanini.

Even more to the point, I experience it myself as a performer. I always try to tell myself, "Remember why you are performing this." This guidance informs literally everything I do on stage, almost magically. And the audience can hear it. When I am NOT connecting to the meaning of the music, the audience hears that too. They can only respond to the technical aspects, which only gets you so far.

So it's not nonsense. It's demonstratable reality.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> But, it is not the performer's function, nor is it possible, to apply some sort of extra-musical, hypothetical "truth" to the music [ie - <<_play this passage like Beethoven's concept of Napoleon!!...um...what??_>>…It is the performer's duty to accurately present the work - precisely, expressively, based upon the actual score. Of course, proper interpretation is going to include style, phrasing, dynamics, attention to melodic/harmonic flow, timbral variation, performance practice, etc….all of these are direct musical concerns. None of these are dependent upon the apprehension, the capture by the performer, of some imaginary, extra-musical "truth".


Of course not, that's just a naive caricature of the approach taken here. What is meant is to be inspired and to have elements of chance (true to the moment) into the performance, having done all the musical due diligence. The due diligence is just a starting point for an interpreter like Furtwangler. Knowing the historical significance of Napolean, like a great many other things, leads to inspiration only indirectly and it, of course, cannot overrun the general musical interpretation based on careful studies of manuscripts, music literature, and the logic/language of music and intuitions.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What I am saying is that true musical connection is PERSONAL. When you personally identify and present YOUR VERSION of why this piece of music is great, moving, etc., you are allowing real connection to take place with the audience


I presented my own version of Beethoven's fuer elise on piano once. I played forte during piano sections and passed wind as part of a post-modern 'death of the author' interpretation.

To my horror, the audience didn't really appreciate where I was coming from but I LOVED it.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The "truth" I am talking about is when you see *the unique essence of the music*, you let that guide your interpretation of the music, and the audience responds. You are denying the validity of this approach, which is simplistic and short-sighted, not to mention ignorant.


It again sounds like you are referring to mysterious metaphysical entities to justify what you like in music - implying that performances you like are touching upon this apprently-existant thing whereas others are not.

What is the essence of beethoven's 5th, if it's not the score nor the composer's intentions in having written the score, such that we need to posit performance X having approached this essence, in order to explain why SOME people liked that performance? And please just don't have this 'essence' being something vague like 'what connects us as humans' - as subjective preferences can connect us well enough. Watch a sports match to see this.

Thanks.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> It again sounds like you are referring to mysterious metaphysical entities to justify what you like in music - implying that performances you like are touching upon this apprently-existant thing whereas others are not.
> 
> What is the essence of beethoven's 5th, if it's not the score nor the composer's intentions in having written the score, such that we need to posit performance X having approached this essence, in order to explain why SOME people liked that performance? And please just don't have this 'essence' being something vague like 'what connects us as humans' - as subjective preferences can connect us well enough. Watch a sports match to see this.
> 
> Thanks.


How did Beethoven get to be popular in the first place?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How did Beethoven get to be popular in the first place?


How did Nicki Minaj or Madonna get to be popular? They created music that gives people pleasure. In the case of Beethoven, music was created which arguably gives rise to greater goods then just sensual pleasure, like feelings of renewal or power or connection (though pop music arguably connects more people more strongly than classical - people swaying in unison is a much more powerful connection than sitting in a seat quietly).

Where on earth 'essence' comes in here, I do not see.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> How did Nicki Minaj or Madonna get to be popular? They created music that gives people pleasure. In the case of Beethoven, music was created which arguably gives rise to greater goods then just sensual pleasure, like feelings of renewal or power or connection (though pop music arguably connects more people more strongly than classical - people swaying in unison is a much more powerful connection than sitting in a seat quietly).
> 
> Where on earth 'essence' comes in here, I do not see.


Popularity is by definition proof that preference is not a random phenomenon.

But your example above about playing Beethoven in an oddball way that sounds right to you...we have an example of this: Glenn Gould. Why is Gould's Bach more popular than a more chaste, by the book performer like András Schiff? Because Gould personalizes Bach.

Was Beethoven communicating something uniquely personal in his compositions, or was he following what his music teachers taught him like a trained monkey? Obviously the former. Otherwise he would not be remembered still today. The pedantic composers are the ones who teach but then get forgotten.

Beethoven's music speaks to us. And the truly great interpreter of Beethoven shares his personal connection to Beethoven's music with his audience.

Will a personal interpretation speak to everyone? No, just like Beethoven's music does not speak to everyone.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Popularity is by definition proof that preference is not a random phenomenon.
> 
> But your example above about playing Beethoven in an oddball way that sounds right to you...we have an example of this: Glenn Gould. Why is Gould's Bach more popular than a more chaste, by the book performer like András Schiff? Because Gould personalizes Bach.
> 
> Was Beethoven communicating something uniquely personal in his compositions, or was he following what his music teachers taught him like a trained monkey? Obviously the former. Otherwise he would not be remembered still today. The pedantic composers are the ones who teach but then get forgotten.
> 
> Beethoven's music speaks to us. And the truly great interpreter of Beethoven shares his personal connection to Beethoven's music with his audience.
> 
> Will a personal interpretation speak to everyone? No, just like Beethoven's music does not speak to everyone.


It's interesting that you seem to have two approaches: one is a highly personalised approach and the other is like a trained monkey. Sorry but these are strawmen which you have set up. Most interpreters are not like this. Of course the great interpreter of Beethoven shares his personal connection with Beethoven with the audience. Why earth do you think literally millions tuned into Toscanini's radio broadcasts and brought his recordings of Beethoven by the truckload? Because he did just that!


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've destroyed every one of your arguments.


LOL!! you've destroyed nothing. I've totally trashed your points - 
your "pie-in-the-sky" "musical truth" is simply a fictitious construct the existence of which you cannot prove scientifically or empirically. it's like trying to prove scientifically the existence of god....can't be done, therefore, may be considered unnecessary, or even superfluous



> The "truth" I am talking about is when you see the unique essence of the music


OK, getting back to the thread topic - Getting back to thread title - conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux Solti, Szell, Mravinsky do it better - they go by the score - they find the treasures contained therein. They are not distracted by some mythical "pie-in-the-sky" metaphysical baggage. 
Boris Goldovsky, the great opera guru and Reiner student put it most aptly he said that the conductor's job is to go into the score - to find what's there, to see the big picture, the overall view, but also to discover all of those wonderful details, those touches of genius that make the music so special. This is precisely what conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, Solti, Monteux did so effectively. They find the big picture, they illuminate those details, they present those touches of genius the composer has implanted in the music, in the score itself….their performances are based upon precise execution, appropriate style, diligent attention to the dramatic flow of the music, the fundamental rhythm, melody and harmony of the work.

The score does not indicate, or provide for sloppy ensemble or train-wrecks [unless specifically instructed - random, aleatoric, etc] 
These conductors provide stunning performances based upon the score written by the composer - accurate, exciting, dramatic, moving, stimulating, marvelous in their execution and expression. They are every bit as exciting as anything the Furtwanglerians might produce, but they are far more accurately performed.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> .....
> You are saying that the job of the performer is to DEPERSONALIZE the music.


total baloney. complete nonsense.

There is no point in discussing your imaginary, esoteric, non-musical "truth" You cannot prove its existence scientifically or empirically - it exists in your imagination. You cannot prove it actually exists any more than you can prove that god exists. You make the "leap of faith". Fine, works for you, but it is not a concrete, tangible entity. As I said- it is therefore, unnecessary, even superfluous.

What is concrete, tangible, _sensable_ is the negative effect pursuit of this imaginary, non-existent ideal has on actual musical performance - ie - the frequent sloppiness of Furtwangler's performances as he spontaneously jerks, twists, lurches the tempo and rhythm, supposedly in attempt to apprehend this so-called musical "truth"….what musical truth is being attained when he suddenly accelerates at measure 231 of the Brahms, and the strings and woodwinds fall apart rhythmically, and the ensemble is sloppy, not together?? 
What metaphysical "spirit" is achieved when the very conclusion of Furtwangler's Beethoven #9 totally falls apart, in an inglorious orchestral train-wreck?? Is it that the universe is a total train-wreck, coming off the rails in cataclysmic fashion??

I feel sorry for you that you cannot appreciate the great, powerful music-making of so many great conductors past and present, who, by delving into the actual score, were/are able to present wonderful, dramatic, exciting, expertly performed renditions of great musical works.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> If you believe Toscanini is about 'cold discipline and ruthless efficiency' then I suggest you get a new pair of ears! Ridiculous statements!


Really, I feel sorry for the poor dude.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What is meant is to be inspired and to have elements of chance (true to the moment) into the performance, having done all the musical due diligence. The due diligence is just a starting point for an interpreter like Furtwangler.


It is for conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Solti, etc as well. they took chances all the time, but they exercised tremendous control over the orchestra thru excellent conducting technique. When they take chances, it doesn't all fall apart.
what is really indefensible is this attitude that ragged performance, sloppy execution is somehow excusable or justifiable because the conductor is pursuing some fictitious "pie-in-the-sky" ideal or concept...that this somehow equates with a "great" performance??...baloney.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I feel sorry for you that you cannot appreciate the great, powerful music-making of so many great conductors past and present, who, by delving into the actual score, were/are able to present wonderful, dramatic, exciting, expertly performed renditions of great musical works.


I appreciate them. I just appreciate others at a deeper level. Because they go deeper into the meaning of the music.



Heck148 said:


> What is concrete, tangible, sensible is the negative effect pursuit of this ephemeral, non-existent ideal has on actual musical performance - ie - the frequent sloppiness of Furtwangler's performances as he spontaneously jerks, twists, lurches the tempo and rhythm, supposedly in attempt to apprehend this so-called musical "truth"….what musical truth is being attained when he suddenly accelerates at measure 231 of the Brahms, and the strings and woodwinds fall apart rhythmically, and the ensemble is sloppy, not together??
> What metaphysical "spirit" is achieved when the very conclusion of Furtwangler's Beethoven #9 totally falls apart, in an inglorious orchestral train-wreck?? Is it that the universe is a total train-wreck, coming off the rails in cataclysmic fashion??


And yet for all you say Furtwangler is more popular today than ever. His Beethoven 9th is the most widely acclaimed of all 9ths save for perhaps Karajan, who had the benefit of stereo.

Why is Furtwangler's appeal so enduring? For reasons that obviously go over your head.

I feel sorry for _you_.

.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> How did Beethoven get to be popular in the first place?









RogerWaters said:


> How did Madonna get to be popular?


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I appreciate them. I just appreciate others at a deeper level. Because they go deeper into the meaning of the music.


Though not irrefutably so.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Though not irrefutably so.


Just like Beethoven is not irrefutably one of the greatest composers. No opinion of art is irrefutable.

The problem for Heck is that he cannot in his diatribes against Furtwangler simultaneously explain his appeal. Every lawyer knows that in order to effectively win a case, you must be able to stand in the shoes of the other lawyer and argue his point of view. This shows that you have thoroughly vetted all arguments before arriving at your own.

My problem with Heck's analysis is that, by his own admission, he only focuses on the simple nuts and bolts and refuses to acknowledge there is more to interpretation. The fact that he can only focus on ensemble issues in Furtwangler performances accentuates his lack of comprehension.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> It is for conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Solti, etc as well. they took chances all the time, but they exercised tremendous control over the orchestra thru excellent conducting technique. When they take chances, it doesn't all fall apart.
> what is really indefensible is this attitude that ragged performance, sloppy execution is somehow excusable or justifiable because the conductor is pursuing some fictitious "pie-in-the-sky" ideal or concept...that this somehow equates with a "great" performance??...baloney.


If the performance is inspired, then yes, some small foibles are excusable. I would always prefer an inspired performance with some imperfections than an uninspired "perfectly" executed performance. Nobody ever praises an uninspired performance with poor execution and deviations from the score.

All of Horowitz's live concerts have problems with wildly exaggerated dynamics and tempo fluctuation, wrong notes, even occasionally memory lapses but honestly who the hell cares.

I don't know why you keep bringing up "Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, and Solti", they are great in their own way, for sure, and of course, they are musical too. So are a great many other conductors. But they are definitely not infallible for "textual fidelity", far from it, it all depends on the work. Toscanini missed quite a lot of details in his Beethoven, so did Furtwangler.

Furtwangler mostly did not have the luxury to mix takes in a studio and he was not happy with the few studio recordings either. Comparing live recordings (most of them are not approved by him) with overly engineered studio recordings for the level of execution is just wrong-headed.

Musicians should always put inspiration above execution, provided that they are technically competent. Nobody would want to hear an uninspired poet playing perfectly with words. Inspiration, by definition, is outside the text, or "pie-in-the-sky" as you have wrongly mocked. Good execution provides the bedrock for inspiration to be effortless channeled rather than hindered. "Textual fidelity" provides musical disciplines that prevent self-indulgence. But "perfect execution" is what I would rather use to describe a great circus show or a great performance of professional athletics than a musical experience.

If being inspired is nonsensical or baloney as you have put it, then so be it, I shall gladly remain nonsensical in this sense. What you have described is more about professionalism rather than aesthetics. Your obstinate concern about execution is admirable but misplaced in the appreciation of music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

Well-stated


.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

OMG! Listen to this egregious train wreck at 6:32! What an abomination!!!






Of course that doesn't matter, even though it is distracting for a moment, just like a cough is distracting.

What DOES matter is that the overemphasis on precision and articulation as an end in itself robs the music of its freedom and depth. It sounds wimpy. Furthermore, he is in a race to the finish to prove...what? The dramatic power - the space in between the notes - vanishes.

Heck argues that if you are simply precise, the music speaks for itself. Utter nonsense as proven in recordings.

Let's hear Coriolan interpreted by a true Beethoven master:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ Yes the 43 Coriolan is absolutely fantastic!


----------



## vincula

Unfortunately with all the professionalism/academicism and an almost obsessive fixation on perfect execution many tend to forget than a musical score is not music. Music has to be "played".

To play. What a great verb! Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, Italians... play!

In Spanish they say "_tocar_" (touching) if speaking of instruments and music.

Let's keeping playing music and "touching" beauty, gents 

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

vincula said:


> Unfortunately with all the professionalism/academicism and an almost obsessive fixation on perfect execution many tend to forget than a musical score is not music. Music has to be "played".


Pffffft! What imaginary, metaphysical nonsense.

Art interpretation and appreciation is concrete and mechanical. No different than calibrating the speedometer on a car. Unless of course you want to be accused of being....portentous!


----------



## vincula

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Pffffft! What imaginary, metaphysical nonsense.
> 
> Art interpretation and appreciation is concrete and mechanical. No different than calibrating the speedometer on a car. Unless of course you want to be accused of being....portentous!


I completely disagree on this mechanical view of things, but it's not my intention to hi-jack the thread and start a long discussion which I don't deem very fruitful, though probably rather long. We both love Furtwängler, so we must agree on that and call it a day.

Listening to an old vinyl right now btw:









Gonna flip the record. Don't wanna grind the diamond away!

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

vincula said:


> I completely disagree on this mechanical view of things, but it's not my intention to hi-jack the thread and start a long discussion which I don't deem very fruitful, though probably rather long. We both love Furtwängler, so we must agree on that and call it a day.


I was joking. Just a little parody, friend.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> OMG! Listen to this egregious train wreck at 6:32! What an abomination!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that doesn't matter, even though it is distracting for a moment, just like a cough is distracting.
> 
> What DOES matter is that the overemphasis on precision and articulation as an end in itself robs the music of its freedom and depth. It sounds wimpy. Furthermore, he is in a race to the finish to prove...what? The dramatic power - the space in between the notes - vanishes.
> 
> Heck argues that if you are simply precise, the music speaks for itself. Utter nonsense as proven in recordings.
> 
> Let's hear Coriolan interpreted by a true Beethoven master:


Oh for goodness sake. As if Toscanini was not a true master of Beethoven! You make yourself a laughing stock in any orchestral circles I guess.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Pffffft! What imaginary, metaphysical nonsense.
> 
> Art interpretation and appreciation is concrete and mechanical. No different than calibrating the speedometer on a car. Unless of course you want to be accused of being....portentous!


You come out with this sort of nonsense as if people actually believe it and as if you are the only wise guru. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just like Beethoven is not irrefutably one of the greatest composers. *No opinion of art is irrefutable.*
> 
> The problem for Heck is that he cannot in his diatribes against Furtwangler simultaneously explain his appeal. Every lawyer knows that in order to effectively win a case, you must be able to stand in the shoes of the other lawyer and argue his point of view. This shows that you have thoroughly vetted all arguments before arriving at your own.
> 
> My problem with Heck's analysis is that, by his own admission, he only focuses on the simple nuts and bolts and refuses to acknowledge there is more to interpretation. The fact that he can only focus on ensemble issues in Furtwangler performances accentuates his lack of comprehension.


Apart from yours?


----------



## vincula

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was joking. Just a little parody, friend.


Thank God. Too much Wagner lately, so some of my sense of humour's getting a bit thick thiz dazs 

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

How can you interpret program music such as Coriolan without knowing about the story, Shakespeare's play or Collin's remake? In this context, it makes perfect sense to say which one is "closer to the spirit" of the tale or the Shakespeare tragedy.

For me, the spirit lies in the nobility and radicalism (rejecting society) of self-integrity taken to the extreme (which inevitably leads to destruction).

In Toscanini's 38 recording, I don't hear this noble self-determination but a rather agitated Roman general, and Coriolanus mother sure sounds much younger and buoyant than the one in Furtwangler 43. These descriptions are not to be taken literally or picturesque but only serve as a reflection of inner states of how the audience should feel.


----------



## DavidA

vincula said:


> Thank God. Too much Wagner lately, so some of my sense of humour's getting a bit thick thiz dazs
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Wagner is rather short on gags


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Apart from yours?


Just because you don't know how to refute my opinions doesn't make them irrefutable


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> How can you interpret program music such as Coriolan without knowing about the story, Shakespeare's play or Collin's remake? In this context, it makes perfect sense to say which one is "closer to the spirit" of the tale or the Shakespeare tragedy.
> 
> For me, the spirit lies in the nobility and radicalism (rejecting society) of self-integrity taken to the extreme (which inevitably leads to destruction).
> 
> In Toscanini's 38 recording, I don't hear this noble self-determination but a rather agitated Roman general, and Coriolanus mother sure sounds much younger and buoyant than the one in Furtwangler 43. These descriptions are not to be taken literally or picturesque but only serve as a reflection of inner states of how the audience should feel.


Amazing what the imagination will do


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> How can you interpret program music such as Coriolan without knowing about the story, Shakespeare's play or Collin's remake? In this context, it makes perfect sense to say which one is "closer to the spirit" of the tale or the Shakespeare tragedy.
> 
> For me, the spirit lies in the nobility and radicalism (rejecting society) of self-integrity taken to the extreme (which inevitably leads to destruction).
> 
> In Toscanini's 38 recording, I don't hear this noble self-determination but a rather agitated Roman general, and Coriolanus mother sure sounds much younger and buoyant than the one in Furtwangler 43. These descriptions are not to be taken literally or picturesque but only serve as a reflection of inner states of how the audience should feel.


You are speaking waaaay above our heads. Can you please just comment on whether the E-flat in the oboe line in bar 37 is in tune?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just because you don't know how to refute my opinions doesn't make them irrefutable


"O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" (Burns)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Amazing what the imagination will do


Amazing, isn't it? What sort of imagination do you think it took Beethoven to compose the Coriolan?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Wagner is rather short on gags


Luckily we have your comments to make up for it.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Wagner is rather short on gags


_Siegfried_ has quite a few


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just like Beethoven is not irrefutably one of the greatest composers. No opinion of art is irrefutable.
> 
> The problem for Heck is that he cannot in his diatribes against Furtwangler simultaneously explain his appeal. Every lawyer knows that in order to effectively win a case, you must be able to stand in the shoes of the other lawyer and argue his point of view. This shows that you have thoroughly vetted all arguments before arriving at your own.
> 
> My problem with Heck's analysis is that, by his own admission, he only focuses on the simple nuts and bolts and refuses to acknowledge there is more to interpretation. The fact that he can only focus on ensemble issues in Furtwangler performances accentuates his lack of comprehension.


Why make this about Heck? I was talking to you.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> OMG! Listen to this egregious train wreck at 6:32! What an abomination!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that doesn't matter, even though it is distracting for a moment, just like a cough is distracting.
> 
> What DOES matter is that the overemphasis on precision and articulation as an end in itself robs the music of its freedom and depth. It sounds wimpy. Furthermore, he is in a race to the finish to prove...what? The dramatic power - the space in between the notes - vanishes.
> 
> Heck argues that if you are simply precise, the music speaks for itself. Utter nonsense as proven in recordings.
> 
> Let's hear Coriolan interpreted by a true Beethoven master:


To me, Toscanini's performance sounds hasty, clipped, driven, literal, and unremarkable.

Is this what's meant by "revolutionizing" the way music is played?


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> _Siegfried_ has quite a few


Full of unintentional humour: "This is no man!" :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Amazing, isn't it? What sort of imagination do you think it took Beethoven to compose the Coriolan?


Not imagination my friend. Creative genius.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Not imagination my friend. Creative genius.


Oh, right. Creative genius has nothing to do with using one's imagination. I believe Beethoven copied the Coriolan out of a book he found in his basement. He did a great job of copying the notes precisely.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Why make this about Heck? I was talking to you.


Because Heck has appointed himself the spokesman for Toscanini's "Allegro con brio" philosophy of music. Unfortunately he does not find himself in a great deal of company.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh, right. Creative genius has nothing to do with using one's imagination. I believe Beethoven copied the Coriolan out of a book he found in his basement. He did a great job of copying the notes precisely.


You are my friend a man without a clue about genius if you believe that was all there was to it


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because Heck has appointed himself the spokesman for Toscanini's "Allegro con brio" philosophy of music. Unfortunately he does not find himself in a great deal of company.


He has Beethoven for company. I believe it was Beethoven who started the trend


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> He has Beethoven for company. I believe it was Beethoven who started the trend


You mean it was Beethoven who started the trend of imagining Napolean as symbolic of the heroic theme of his 3rd Symphony? Yes, you are right about.

This thread has stretched the limits of comic absurdity. My sides are hurting.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> He has Beethoven for company. I believe it was Beethoven who started the trend


I'm sure you know nothing about any "trend" started by Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You are my friend a man without a clue about genius if you believe that was all there was to it


Irony is obviously lost on you. Along with a lot else.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You mean it was Beethoven who started the trend of imagining Napolean as symbolic of the heroic theme of his 3rd Symphony? Yes, you are right about.
> 
> This thread has stretched the limits of comic absurdity. My sides are hurting.


My head is hurting. You just don't get it do you! :lol:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I'm sure you know nothing about any "trend" started by Beethoven.


To be fair, David is probably referring to the practice of sticking with metronome marks when performing, in his signature antagonistic style of course.

But no one really strictly adheres to the metronome marks (not even Norrington and Gardiner) and tempi were all over the place. It all comes down to how the conductor approaches the work. There are a lot of habitual tempo fluctuations as well by the so-called "authentic" conductors, it's not difficult to see that with a score in hand.

Backhaus was (unfairly) maligned for his metronomic style of play back in the days and I still don't see many Backhaus fans now (if there is any).

Maybe there should be a thread "Explain fascination with metronome marks".


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> To be fair, David is probably referring to the practice of sticking with metronome marks when performing, in his signature antagonistic style of course.
> 
> But no one really strictly adheres to the metronome marks (not even Norrington and Gardiner) and tempi were all over the place. It all comes down to how the conductor approaches the work. There are a lot of habitual tempo fluctuations as well by the so-called "authentic" conductors, it's not difficult to see that with a score in hand.
> 
> Maybe there should be a thread "Explain fascination with metronome marks".


I'll be "fair" to DavidA when he starts being fair to the forum and refrains from throwing shallow, ignorant, sarcastic remarks at people (preceded by "my friend") just to see if he can get a reaction.

I'd like to know where I can buy a can of troll repellant.

The truth, of course, is that we don't know exactly how Beethoven wanted his works to sound, his metronome markings notwithstanding. Suggesting that Beethoven would have agreed with anyone here is sheer presumption.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> The truth, of course, is that we don't know exactly how Beethoven wanted his works to sound, his metronome markings notwithstanding. Suggesting that Beethoven would have agreed with anyone here is sheer presumption.


The tendency to objectify or standardize performance may be a sign that we are getting more alienated from music. (if such trend is real)

A few years back, a musician told this story when he sat in one of Muti's masterclasses in Italy for opera singing. Muti was addressing his students by exemplifying great tenors of the past such as Gigli and Bastianini. But to his dismay, there was no response and the students didn't seem to know who they are. So Muti, still in disbelief, continued to press them about a bunch of great singers and no students seem to know anything about them. Only when Muti mentioned Andrea Bocelli the students started to recognize the name and Muti was facepalming in shock and disappointment (crossed himself).

If the score and execution are all there is, then there is no reason and no incentive for the musicians to go the extra mile. There is no reason to learn from the tradition, study the composer's life, read Faust or Thus Spoke Zarathustra, study the past masters, travel around the world, listen to world music, learn music psychology and etc. That can't be good for music-making of the 21th century.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If the score and execution are all there is, then there is no reason and no incentive for the musicians to go the extra mile. There is no reason to learn from the tradition, study the composer's life, read Faust or Thus Spoke Zarathustra, study the past masters, travel around the world, listen to world music, learn music psychology and etc. That can't be good for music-making of the 21th century.


Dude, we ain't got time for fairy tales in the modern world. Just tell me how to get from A to B most efficiently and we're good.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The tendency to objectify or standardize performance may be a sign that we are getting more alienated from music. (if such trend is real)
> 
> A few years back, a musician told this story when he sat in one of Muti's masterclasses in Italy for opera singing. Muti was addressing his students by exemplifying great tenors of the past such as Gigli and Bastianini. But to his dismay, there was no response and the students didn't seem to know who they are. So Muti, still in disbelief, continued to press them about a bunch of greater singers and no students seem to know anything about them. Only when Muti mentioned Andrea Bocelli the students started to recognize the name and Muti was facepalming in shock and disappointment (crossed himself).
> 
> If the score and execution are all there is, then there is no reason and no incentive for the musicians to go the extra mile. There is no reason to learn from the tradition, study the composer's life, read Faust or Thus Spoke Zarathustra, study the past masters, travel around the world, listen to world music, learn music psychology and etc. That can't be good for music-making of the 21th century.


It's true that cultural traditions fade and are lost, and there are traditions of musical performance that we no longer hear. But does any musician think that "score and execution is all there is"? Is music-making in significant declne, in quality or quantity? Certainly there have been changes in the classical music world, a major one being the specializing of musicians in the various branches of "early" music. But I see no evidence of a general decline in except in opera, where there do seem to be fewer great singers than there were fifty years ago (one can verify this easily through recordings).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> It's true that cultural traditions fade and are lost, and there are traditions of musical performance that we no longer hear. But does any musician think that "score and execution is all there is"? Is music-making in significant decline, in quality or quantity? Certainly there have been changes in the classical music world, a major one being the specializing of musicians in the various branches of "early" music. But I see no evidence of a general decline in except in opera, where there do seem to be fewer great singers than there were fifty years ago (one can verify this easily through recordings).


I doubt musicians believe that. But speaking from personal experience, many professional musicians don't seem to be classical music lovers. I have a friend who is a Russian trained soprano who sings beautifully and has a doctorate degree from Tchaikovsky conservatory. I couldn't even start a conversation with her about the Ring because she couldn't care less. All she cares about is singing musicals to be financially stable and she told me that nobody listens to opera anymore. Another friend who is a brilliant concert violinist and has a master's degree from the New England conservatory doesn't seem to listen to classical music at all outside a few Heifetz recordings, and he does just fine. I have more examples, most musicians I encounter in real life are the cynics about music, we the music lovers are the idealists. Execution is a haven for them to be comfortable with so they can get on with their life without worrying too much.

One thing is sure, the music industry has expanded significantly postwar and the market share of classical music has also shrunk significantly (a meager 4% in 2017). As a result, top musical talents (such as singers) don't always end up in the Classical scene. In fact, they have much better career alternatives than before, with higher returns and less effort. Furthermore, the comparative advantage of CM is no longer that it's intuitive and spontaneous, but that it's difficult, technical, and meant to be respected than loved, when compared with other genres. This is one economic force that drives the taste for "perfect execution".

With streaming services CM is making a coming back, last year has seen almost 50% growth. But I am not sure how financial success translates to a revival.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
Same here. A fellow singer/soloist was once overheard referring to me, saying, “He actually listens to this stuff!”

I was mortified. I had no idea listening to classical music made you an exception to the rule. And vocal music isn’t even my favorite repertoire, if that isn’t already obvious.

It does seem that a lot of people are in it more for personal glory/achievement as opposed to love of the music.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I doubt musicians believe that. But speaking from personal experience, many professional musicians don't seem to be classical music lovers. I have a friend who is a Russian trained soprano who sings beautifully and has a doctorate degree from Tchaikovsky conservatory. I couldn't even start a conversation with her about the Ring because she couldn't care less. All she cares about is singing musicals to be financially stable and she told me that nobody listens to opera anymore. Another friend who is a brilliant concert violinist and has a master's degree from the New England conservatory doesn't seem to listen to classical music at all outside a few Heifetz recordings, and he does just fine. I have more examples, most musicians I encounter in real life are the cynics about music, we the music lovers are the idealists. Execution is a haven for them to be comfortable with so they can get on with their life without worrying too much.


A music-loving friend of mine who worked at Boston University and lived just down the street from the New England Conservatory and Berkeley School of Music said the same thing about performing musicians he met in the 1970s. I'm guessing that working musicians have _never_ been the people to discuss the _Ring_ with you.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> To be fair, David is probably referring to the practice of sticking with metronome marks when performing, in his signature antagonistic style of course.
> 
> But no one really strictly adheres to the metronome marks (not even Norrington and Gardiner) and tempi were all over the place. It all comes down to how the conductor approaches the work. There are a lot of habitual tempo fluctuations as well by the so-called "authentic" conductors, it's not difficult to see that with a score in hand.
> 
> Backhaus was (unfairly) maligned for his metronomic style of play back in the days and I still don't see many Backhaus fans now (if there is any).
> 
> Maybe there should be a thread "Explain fascination with metronome marks".


I am just telling of the 'trend' started by Beethoven of writing 'Allegro con brio' on the top of the score of the Eroica - something which certain gentlemen here appear to be unaware of. And certain conductors who had the temerity to follow it without asking permission!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I am just telling of the 'trend' started by Beethoven of writing 'Allegro con brio' on the top of the score of the Eroica


Not sure I understand...you mean Beethoven started a trend...and others continued it...to "write allegro con brio on top of the score of Eroica"? If it was already written there by LvB himself, why would anyone else need to do it?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Not sure I understand...you mean Beethoven started a trend...and others continued it...to "write allegro con brio on top of the score of Eroica"? If it was already written there by LvB himself, why would anyone else need to do it?


In case you missed the irony of my remark I was being ironic. Never mind the other guys missed it as well. I perhaps should've made it more obvious! It was in reply to one to BHs assertions.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No opinion of art is irrefutable.


Perhaps all members should be required to have this in their signature, as a permanent reminder to the dogmatic poster not to get carried away, and for the reader to be reminded to treat all declarations of opinion as a definitive judgement with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> In case you missed the irony of my remark I was being ironic. Never mind the other guys missed it as well. I perhaps should've made it more obvious! It was in reply to one to BHs assertions.


Not ironic. Just sloppy. In any case, "allegro con brio" is neither a specific tempo nor a full characterization of a piece of music, so there's no point in arguing about who is or is not following a "trend." When Toscanini's infamous quote is taken to represent Beethoven's ultimate thoughts about his symphony, and to express them so unequivocally that all conductors are forever bound to bow to them as to his last will and testament, real music-making has gone to the glue factory.

I realize that it can be perversely gratifying to hang around a place forever, arguing about nothing. But this particular argument is so vacuous that its purpose is easily forgotten even as it proceeds.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> In case you missed the irony of my remark I was being ironic. Never mind the other guys missed it as well. I perhaps should've made it more obvious! It was in reply to one to BHs assertions.


Good grief, I understand very well what he wrote on the score. The point is not the tempo marking, but that Toscanini says it is ONLY that and not "Napoleon." Well, wasn't it Beethoven himself who originally linked the theme of the work to Napoleon?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps all members should be required to have this in their signature, as a permanent reminder to the dogmatic poster not to get carried away, and for the reader to be reminded to treat all declarations of opinion as a definitive judgement with a pinch of salt.


'No opinion of art is irrefutable but some opinions are more irrefutable than others' :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good grief, *I understand very well what he wrote on the score*. The point is not the tempo marking, but that Toscanini says it is ONLY that and not "Napoleon." Well, wasn't it Beethoven himself who originally linked the theme of the work to Napoleon?


Sorry I thought you missed that point in your goings on about Napoleon. Listening to Furtwangler he seems to have done too!


----------



## BachIsBest

DavidA said:


> Sorry I thought you missed that point in your goings on about Napoleon. Listening to Furtwangler he seems to have done too!


"my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo"
-Ludwig van Beethoven

"why do they annoy me by asking for my tempi? Either they are good musicians and ought to know how to play my music, or they are bad musicians and in that case my indications would be of no avail"
-Ludwig van Beethoven

Also, students of Beethoven and people who heard Beethoven conduct often testified that Beethoven would alter the tempos as he performed. But yah, Furtwängler was just defying Beethoven's will .


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> "my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo"
> -Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> "why do they annoy me by asking for my tempi? Either they are good musicians and ought to know how to play my music, or they are bad musicians and in that case my indications would be of no avail"
> -Ludwig van Beethoven
> 
> Also, students of Beethoven and people who heard Beethoven conduct often testified that Beethoven would alter the tempos as he performed. But yah, Furtwängler was just defying Beethoven's will .


Yes and we also know that Beethoven's marked tempi were always dangerously fast. You missed that bit! 

Beethoven's metronome mark of 1 bar (3/4) per second is clearly faster than most or all traditional performances.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Yes and we also know that Beethoven's marked tempi were always dangerously fast. You missed that bit!


Typical of you to pretend that your simplistic thinking wasn't just refuted. Let me help you in reconsidering your response by repeating BachIs Best's refutation:

*"my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo"
-Ludwig van Beethoven*

*Also, students of Beethoven and people who heard Beethoven conduct often testified that Beethoven would alter the tempos as he performed.*

This is overwhelmingly suggestive of the likelihood that tempo modification in the course of a movement was a normal practice of Beethoven, and that strict adherence to a tempo, whether marked "allegro con brio" or something else, was not something he necessarily expected or wanted. We know Wagner's views on this, as he expressed them clearly in an essay, and by all reports Mahler, too, took a flexible approach to tempo according to the needs of expression. Given that we can hear exactly this approach taken by musicians, especially singers, in the early years of recording, we may be justified in thinking that performing extended movements in strict tempo was an invention of the 20th century, and that conductors such as Mengelberg and Furtwangler represent a more authentic tradition going back at least to Beethoven.

"Allegro con brio" my foot.


----------



## annaw

Sergei Rachmaninov said in an interview: "I expose my own feelings by means of tempo, phrasing and dynamic nuances of the music itself, and in the general outlook it gives the idea of my conception. But any prominent pianist can play my music in separate details, in nuances and shades quite differently from myself, and nevertheless, in the whole, the conception would not suffer because good taste and musical feeling of the genuine performer would prevent it."

Furtwängler said: "[Interpretation] will naturally differ, in conformity with the conductor's individuality. . . . actually for each work there is (despite the slight external deviations) only one conception, only one execution inherent in the music, peculiar to it, correct."

And Monteverdi differentiated between "tempo della mano" (tempo of the hand) and "tempo dell'affetto dell'animo" (tempo of emotion).

Based on the ideas of all three, different interpretation, which are different in musical nuances, can all contribute and convey composer's original idea. Using composer's tempo markings is just one of many ways to convey his idea, as Rachmaninov said. Composer's tempo markings guarantee that the performer has a possibility to be absolutely certain he or she is conveying what the composer wanted to be conveyed (through the tempo markings, at least). An intelligent conductor or performer can communicate the same meaning while using entirely different tempo. After all, it was Beethoven himself who wrote the markings _Muß es sein?_ and _Es muß sein!_. He evidently required some sort of "deeper" understanding from the performer. An understanding beyond mere tempo markings.

Quite an interesting article if someone happens to be interested: https://symposium.music.org/index.php/25/item/1992-on-tempo-indications-based-on-beethovens-music (The quotes are also from there.)


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Sergei Rachmaninov said in an interview: "I expose my own feelings by means of tempo, phrasing and dynamic nuances of the music itself, and in the general outlook it gives the idea of my conception. But any prominent pianist can play my music in separate details, in nuances and shades quite differently from myself, and nevertheless, in the whole, the conception would not suffer because good taste and musical feeling of the genuine performer would prevent it."
> 
> Furtwängler said: "[Interpretation] will naturally differ, in conformity with the conductor's individuality. . . . actually for each work there is (despite the slight external deviations) only one conception, only one execution inherent in the music, peculiar to it, correct."
> 
> And Monteverdi differentiated between "tempo della mano" (tempo of the hand) and "tempo dell'affetto dell'animo" (tempo of emotion).
> 
> Based on the ideas of all three, different interpretation, which are different in musical nuances, can all contribute and convey composer's original idea. Using composer's tempo markings is just one of many ways to convey his idea, as Rachmaninov said. Composer's tempo markings guarantee that the performer has a possibility to be absolutely certain he or she is conveying what the composer wanted to be conveyed (through the tempo markings, at least). An intelligent conductor or performer can communicate the same meaning while using entirely different tempo. After all, it was Beethoven himself who wrote the markings _Muß es sein?_ and _Es muß sein!_. He evidently required some sort of "deeper" understanding from the performer. An understanding beyond mere tempo markings.
> 
> Quite an interesting article if someone happens to be interested: https://symposium.music.org/index.php/25/item/1992-on-tempo-indications-based-on-beethovens-music (The quotes are also from there.)


We can give any number of quotes one way or another but the fact it that people are criticising those who seek to realises Beethoven's tempo and justifying those who don't on some kind of ephemeral 'artistic' grounds. The fact is Beethoven envisaged a faster tempo than the Klemperers and Furtwanglers set for the first movement. The ironic part of it is that in to try and justify their heroes people are saying that the conductors who try and follow Beethoven's markings are metronomic which is of course a complete load of nonsense


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> We can give any number of quotes one way or another but the fact it that people are criticising those who seek to realises Beethoven's tempo and justifying those who don't on some kind of ephemeral 'artistic' grounds. The fact is Beethoven envisaged a faster tempo than the Klemperers and Furtwanglers set for the first movement. The ironic part of it is that in to try and justify their heroes people are saying that the conductors who try and follow Beethoven's markings are metronomic which is of course a complete load of nonsense


You know, I didn't look up those quotes just for my own fun. I just suspect that Rachmaninov's words have significantly greater authority than mine when it comes to composing. Also, I'm most definitely not criticising those who seek to realise Beethoven's own tempo markings. I'm quite a traditionalist when it comes to following composer's intentions but I don't think that there is only one definite way to convey the meaning of a composition. That's _why_ I quoted Rachmaninov and Monteverdi, that's why, as far as I recall, Sibelius was able to compliment multiple different performances of his works - there's no one correct way.

Conducting is an art. The quick tempi of Chailly's Beethoven cycle are as appreciated as the slower one's of Blomstedt's Dresden recordings. A talented conductor - whether Furtwängler, Toscanini, Karajan, Solti, Klemperer or someone else - can seek for ways to communicate composer's wishes beyond what's written in the score. It needs intelligence and experience to justify taking such liberties but Furtwängler had both. So had Karajan. Isn't his Mahler 6th controversial because he didn't take all Mahler's profound markings into consideration? But I'm certainly not saying that following Beethoven's tempo markings is not artistic, unintelligent, uninspired, or - oh please forbid! - wrong!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> We can give any number of quotes one way or another but the fact it that people are criticising those who seek to realises Beethoven's tempo and justifying those who don't on some kind of ephemeral 'artistic' grounds. The fact is Beethoven envisaged a faster tempo than the Klemperers and Furtwanglers set for the first movement. The ironic part of it is that in to try and justify their heroes people are saying that the conductors who try and follow Beethoven's markings are metronomic which is of course a complete load of nonsense


Toscanini 39 Eroica committed an extreme tempo fluctuation in the first 4 bars. Furtwangler did not do that. How is this justified? Is Toscanini realizing "Beethoven's tempo"? Should we conclude that this is a bad performance just because of these 4 bars unjustified by the score? Is the fact he is trying to put more weight on the opening tutti based on "ephemeral artistic ground"?


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Toscanini 39 Eroica committed an extreme tempo fluctuation in the first 4 bars. Furtwangler did not do that. How is this justified? Is Toscanini realizing "Beethoven's tempo"? Should we conclude that this is a bad performance just because of these 4 bars unjustified by the score? Is the fact he is trying to put more weight on the opening tutti based on "ephemeral artistic ground"?


The whole thing is the momentum of the performance which Toscanini realised to the effect Beethoven wanted. It is allegro con brio and is found in the momem=ntum of the movement. Sorry but you are clutching at straws again.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

DavidA said:


> The whole thing is the momentum of the performance which Toscanini realised to the effect Beethoven wanted. It is allegro con brio and is found in the momem=ntum of the movement. Sorry but you are clutching at straws again.


You have dodged the questions by repeating a rephrase of Toscanini's quote twice.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> Furtwängler said: "[Interpretation] will naturally differ, in conformity with the conductor's individuality. . . . actually for each work there is (despite the slight external deviations) only one conception, only one execution inherent in the music, peculiar to it, correct."


Interesting that in the posts which followed this one, no one picked up specifically on the words I have underlined. What this says to me is that those who rail against the idea that there is just one way of performing a piece of music should be railing against the above words.

They explicitly refer to "execution" so they are about performance, not an idealised conception in one's imagination, They say, very explicitly, that there is only one correct execution. They do not say that there is a correct execution for Furtwangler, and a correct execution for (say) Jochum, or for me. They say explicitly that the is only one correct execution inherent in the music.

But I am not the same as you, F was not the same as Toscanini, Beethoven was not the same as Mozart: all these people had auditory systems, brains, life experiences, perfect pitch or not, a keen sense for stable tempo or a less keen sense, etc, etc. All these matters will influence how we react to an execution of a piece of music. To put it really crudely, if I'm quite deaf I might want it louder and I may not respond well to a performance with wide dynamic range. F's correct execution may involve a whisper of ppp, but that's not the correct execution for someone who is partially deaf, even if it may be close to a "correct" idealised conception of the piece.

If F had said that there was an ideal conception of a piece of music (akin to Plato's forms), then the idea is one you could agree or disagree with: fine. He did not say that, though: he said there is one correct execution which is inherent in the music. I don't buy that, and also find it odd that it is the F fans who seem keenest to complain against a straightjacket, when F was indicating that he thought there was such a thing - the single correct execution.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> Interesting that in the posts which followed this one, no one picked up specifically on the words I have underlined. What this says to me is that those who rail against the idea that there is just one way of performing a piece of music should be railing against the above words.


Yes, Furtwangler is wrong...but he's entitled to his (well informed) opinion.

And yet I know that every time I listen to a symphony with which I am familiar, I am mentally comparing it to some imaginary 'perfect' version in my head. I know that the likelihood of such perfection actually existing is not only remote, but it will almost certainly a different 'perfection' than is in Furtwangler's head, Toscanini's head, and yours, Eclective Al!


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You have dodged the questions by repeating a rephrase of Toscanini's quote twice.


Not at all. Just saying what Beethoven marked it which Toscanini does. It is you who is dodging the issue - that Furtwangler does not play it up to speed


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Yes, Furtwangler is wrong...but he's entitled to his (well informed) opinion.
> 
> And yet I know that every time I listen to a symphony with which I am familiar, I am mentally comparing it to some imaginary 'perfect' version in my head. I know that the likelihood of such perfection actually existing is not only remote, but it will almost certainly a different 'perfection' than is in Furtwangler's head, Toscanini's head, and yours, Eclective Al!


I am not saying there are not different ways of interpreting a great masterpiece. Where I resist is the seeming baffling thesis that conductors who play it 'allegro con brio' as Beethoven obviously intended and not a deal slower like Furtwangler and Klemperer are automatically 'metronomic'. It appears to me people make these things up to justify a weak thesis.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I am not saying there are not different ways of interpreting a great masterpiece.


As my comment was a response to a post by Eclectic Al, I'm not bothered what you were or were not saying. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> As my comment was a response to a post by Eclectic Al, I'm not bothered what you were or were not saying. :lol:


That's fine. It doesn't bother me what you were saying either - it just seemed a good place to put in what I was saying. Like a coathanger to hang my point on! :lol:


----------



## annaw

Eclectic Al said:


> Interesting that in the posts which followed this one, no one picked up specifically on the words I have underlined. What this says to me is that those who rail against the idea that there is just one way of performing a piece of music should be railing against the above words.
> 
> They explicitly refer to "execution" so they are about performance, not an idealised conception in one's imagination, They say, very explicitly, that there is only one correct execution. They do not say that there is a correct execution for Furtwangler, and a correct execution for (say) Jochum, or for me. They say explicitly that the is only one correct execution inherent in the music.
> 
> But I am not the same as you, F was not the same as Toscanini, Beethoven was not the same as Mozart: all these people had auditory systems, brains, life experiences, perfect pitch or not, a keen sense for stable tempo or a less keen sense, etc, etc. All these matters will influence how we react to an execution of a piece of music. To put it really crudely, if I'm quite deaf I might want it louder and I may not respond well to a performance with wide dynamic range. F's correct execution may involve a whisper of ppp, but that's not the correct execution for someone who is partially deaf, even if it may be close to a "correct" idealised conception of the piece.
> 
> If F had said that there was an ideal conception of a piece of music (akin to Plato's forms), then the idea is one you could agree or disagree with: fine. He did not say that, though: he said there is one correct execution which is inherent in the music. I don't buy that, and also find it odd that it is the F fans who seem keenest to complain against a straightjacket, when F was indicating that he thought there was such a thing - the single correct execution.


Read the article I linked above. It elaborates on the matter, including Furtwängler's views . Quite eye-opening in fact - he seemingly differentiated between intention and interpretation. I quoted him because part of his quote explained the point I was trying to make. Whether we believe in true definite intentions of the composer didn't seem to be that relevant to my argument.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Read the article I linked above. It elaborates on the matter, including Furtwängler's views . Quite eye-opening in fact - he seemingly differentiated between intention and interpretation. I quoted him because part of his quote explained the point I was trying to make. Whether we believe in true definite intentions of the composer didn't seem to be that relevant to my argument.


As I have said I am not saying there is only one way of performing the piece. I'm just saying that posts which accuse conductors of being 'netronimis' because they follow Beethoven's obvious intentions are very far fetched


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I appreciate them. I just appreciate others at a deeper level. Because they go deeper into the meaning of the music.


nonsense.
sorry to put you down but, I have no interest in discussing your own personal faith-based beliefs. If belief in some extra-musical, metaphysical construct or "truth" pleases you, fine, you are welcome to it. It has no relevance to me, to the actual performance of music, or to my enjoyment of music as a listener.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem for Heck is that he canno...


*SUMMARILY DISMISSED*, sorry to put you down but, I have no interest in discussing your own personal faith-based beliefs. If belief in some extra-musical, metaphysical construct or "truth" pleases you, fine, you are welcome to it. 
It has no relevance to me, to the actual performance of music, or to my enjoyment of music as a listener. Feel free to post all you want on the subject, preferably on the Furtwangler/fascination thread, where you are welcome to run it up to 1700 posts and 170 pages if you wish.
Any attempt to introduce it to me, here on the Toscanini thread will be set aside and disregarded as irrelevant.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Those quotes make it clear, and one would assume with a person of Beethoven’s creative stature that it would be obvious, that he preferred to have his works performed by musicians competent enough to understand what he was doing, while those who lacked such understanding and merely repeated his instructions mindlessly as if taking dictation, Beethoven would look upon with disdain.

I have no doubt that if Beethoven were a poster sharing his thoughts here, he would send numerous other posters into fits of anger and offense.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If the performance is inspired, then yes, some small foibles are excusable. I would always prefer an inspired performance with some imperfections than an uninspired "perfectly" executed performance. Nobody ever praises an uninspired performance with poor execution and deviations from the score.


of course, no problem there....BH's problem is that he views accurate, precise performance as a negative - that the conductor/performer should be focusing on someone artificial, imaginary construct of <<ultimate philosophical truth>>. Such construct is totally unprovable, yet like a devout theist, he tries desperately to convince that his god/construct scientifically/empirically exists...naturally he fails.
in Furtwangler's case, this focus on the abstract, imaginary, often resulted in some real trainwrecks, imprecisions, which are all too real and physically, aurally sensable.



> I don't know why you keep bringing up "Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, and Solti", they are great in their own way, for sure, and of course, they are musical too.


Because BH is constantly trying to put them down. and they are, imo opinions, better conductors than his beloved, idolized Herr F.



> Furtwangler mostly did not have the luxury to mix takes in a studio and he was not happy with the few studio recordings either.


Neither did Toscanini....Reiner was famous for recording whole works or mvts, straight thru, one take.



> Musicians should always put inspiration above execution, provided that they are technically competent.


of course, not at issue. but this in no way indicates that one must be seeking to commune with some "pie-in-the-sky" quasi-religious ideal to achieve expressive, valid musical performance.



> If being inspired is nonsensical or baloney as you have put it, then so be it,


Please - I have never said that, or anything close to it. The aforementioned conductors - Toscanini, Monteux, Reiner, etc consistently delivered tremendously inspired performances, and did so without trying to apprehend some mythical non-musical "ultimate truth". They also got great execution from their musicians, on top of producing truly inspired, exciting, dramatic performances!!



> Your obstinate concern about execution is admirable but misplaced in the appreciation of music.


Hardly - it is the way of the professional musical world....if you want to play professionally, you'd better be able to cut the part.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> OMG! Listen to this egregious train wreck at 6:32! What an abomination!!!


LOL!! what are you talking about?? not even close to the furtwanglerian catastrophes we are blessed with. Oh, I suppose it wouldn't happen if Toscanini had been communing with the over-riding _ultimate truth_ of Beethoven!! LOL!!


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ^ Yes the 43 Coriolan is absolutely fantastic!


But dwarfed by the cosmic Reiner account.


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> Yes, Furtwangler is wrong...but he's entitled to his (well informed) opinion.
> 
> And yet I know that every time I listen to a symphony with which I am familiar, I am mentally comparing it to some imaginary 'perfect' version in my head. I know that the likelihood of such perfection actually existing is not only remote, but it will almost certainly a different 'perfection' than is in Furtwangler's head, Toscanini's head, and yours, Eclective Al!


Absolutely agree.

You're going from (a) a single correct execution to (b) a single correct conception. I think we're agreeing about both - ie that neither exists. You've agreed that F was wrong about (a), and I agree with you on (b) that F's perfection, T's perfection, mine and yours are likely to be different, even conceptually.

Maybe one of the things going on here is the extent to which focus is on the listener.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Because BH is constantly trying to put them down. and they are, imo opinions, better conductors than his beloved, idolized Herr F.


ROTFLMAO!!!!

Yes, I alone am responsible for people failing to recognize the interpretive genius of Toscanini, Reiner, and Solti.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! what are you talking about?? not even close to the furtwanglerian catastrophes we are blessed with. Oh, I suppose it wouldn't happen if Toscanini had been communing with the over-riding _ultimate truth_ of Beethoven!! LOL!!


It's called parody. Read the rest of the post. Or don't. You'll just repeat the same drivel regardless.


----------



## Heck148

vincula said:


> Unfortunately with all the professionalism/academicism and an almost obsessive fixation on perfect execution


It's not an obsessive fixation - but it certainly is a positive attribute of music-making.
This obsessive fixation on an imaginary, non-musical <<ultimate truth>> is what is distracting, and unnecessary.
Please, nobody is claiming that deadly dull performance, simply plopping out notes in sequence, without phrasing, expression, dynamic or timbral variation is quality music-making. but none of these elements of great music making are dependent upon apprehension of some imaginary "pie-in-the-sky" metaphysical construct.
It is perfectly possible to present a wonderfully musical, expressive performance of a Telemann sonata, without delving into the _metaphysical ideals, the cosmic viewpoint _of George Phillipe; or are Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner the only composers blessed with such cosmic, universal philosophical "truths"??


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ROTFLMAO!!!!
> 
> Yes, I alone am responsible for people failing to recognize the interpretive genius of Toscanini, Reiner, and Solti.


Quite agree! Has it at last struck home? :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Art interpretation and appreciation is con


*SUMMARILY DISMISSED*, sorry to put you down but, I have no interest in discussing your own personal faith-based beliefs. If belief in some extra-musical, metaphysical construct or "truth" pleases you, fine, you are welcome to it. It has no relevance to me, to the actual performance of music, or to my enjoyment of music as a listener. Feel free to post all you want on the subject, preferably on the Furtwangler/fascination thread, where you are welcome to run it up to 1700 posts and 170 pages if you wish.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> *SUMMARILY DISMISSED*, sorry to put you down but, I have no interest in discussing your own personal faith-based beliefs. If belief in some extra-musical, metaphysical construct or "truth" pleases you, fine, you are welcome to it. It has no relevance to me, to the actual performance of music, or to my enjoyment of music as a listener. Feel free to post all you want on the subject, preferably on the Furtwangler/fascination thread, where you are welcome to run it up to 1700 posts and 170 pages if you wish.


LOL I started this thread, sort of as a parody to be honest. But if your point is that this thread is more appropriate for your brain dead diatribes on how musicians should be no more than unthinking trained monkeys, you'll get no argument from me on that.

There's a place in music for everyone.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are speaking waaaay above our heads. Can you please just comment on whether the E-flat in the oboe line in bar 37 is in tune?


No, no!! the issue is - what is the cosmic meaning of the Eb in the oboe at bar 37?? surely, there must be an answer, floating about in the ether - if only we could capture it!! the entire performance would jell....:lol:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This thread has stretched the limits of comic absurdity. My sides are hurting.


then go back to the furtwangler/fascination thread, and crud that up some more with your quasi-religious metaphysical, ultimate truth spiel. maybe you can run that up to 1800 postings!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> No, no!! the issue is - what is the cosmic meaning of the Eb in the oboe at bar 37?? surely, there must be an answer, floating about in the ether - if only we could capture it!! the entire performance would jell....:lol:


The problem is that people have put what I'm talking about into practice. And they have succeeded. And you can't explain why except with some ridiculous assertion that some people must simply prefer inaccuracy. That is where your entire argument fails. You cannot explain Furtwängler's appeal.

And incidentally you go way overboard in characterizing WF as inaccurate. It's not like he was making a mess of every bar. Far from it. He just wasn't preoccupied with accuracy like your **** retentive heroes. He wasn't SUBSTITUTING accuracy for real inspiration.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> then go back to the furtwangler/fascination thread, and crud that up some more with your quasi-religious metaphysical, ultimate truth spiel. maybe you can run that up to 1800 postings!!


Nope. I started this thread with the purpose of unearthing just how ridiculously brain dead this line of thinking is, and you've played the part extremely well. Congrats.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> Annaw: WF: "actually for each work there is (despite the slight external deviations) only one conception, only one execution inherent in the music, peculiar to it, correct."
> 
> They explicitly refer to "execution" so they are about performance, not an idealised conception in one's imagination, They say, very explicitly, that there is only one correct execution.


no, he specifically says "only one conception...inherent in the music...". His, of course.
Sorry, this is just egotistical nonsense. What makes his conception any more valid than anyone else's?? His grasp of the <<over-riding ultimate truth??>> his apprehension of of the supposed metaphysical spirit overlaying the music??
sorry, not buying it.
I see from subsequent posts that you aren't either....


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope. I started this thread with the purpose of unearthing just how ridiculously brain dead this line of thinking is, and you've played the part extremely well. Congrats.


Yes and you seem to have played your part too! :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Yes, I alone am responsible for people failing to recognize the interpretive genius of Toscanini, Reiner, and Solti.


LOLOLOL!! Music lovers the world over, except you, realize the genius of Toscanini, Reiner, Solti,etc....the Toscanini approach to conducting is completely prevalent in today's musical world. Let's see - how many furtwangler disciples are there?? count 'em on one hand with fingers left over....:devil:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's called parody..


It's called bs.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> LOL I started this thread,.


then cluttered it up with your quasi-religious fixation on unsupportable non-musical nonsense.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The problem is that people have put what I'm talking about into practice. And they have succeeded.


I have no interest in discussing your own personal faith-based beliefs. If belief in some extra-musical, metaphysical construct or "truth" pleases you, fine, you are welcome to it. It has no relevance to me, to the actual performance of music, or to my enjoyment of music as a listener. Feel free to post all you want on the subject, preferably on the Furtwangler/fascination thread, where you are welcome to run it up to 1700 posts and 170 pages if you wish.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Heck148 said:


> no, he specifically says "only one conception...inherent in the music...". His, of course.
> Sorry, this is just egotistical nonsense. What makes his conception any more valid than anyone else's?? His grasp of the <<over-riding ultimate truth??>> his apprehension of of the supposed metaphysical spirit overlaying the music??
> sorry, not buying it.
> 
> They do not say that there is a correct execution for Furtwangler, and a correct execution for (say) Jochum, or for me. They say explicitly that the is only one correct execution inherent in the music.
> 
> But I am not the same as you, F was not the same as Toscanini, Beethoven was not the same as Mozart: all these people had auditory systems, brains, life experiences, perfect pitch or not, a keen sense for stable tempo or a less keen sense, etc, etc. All these matters will influence how we react to an execution of a piece of music. To put it really crudely, if I'm quite deaf I might want it louder and I may not respond well to a performance with wide dynamic range. F's correct execution may involve a whisper of ppp, but that's not the correct execution for someone who is partially deaf, even if it may be close to a "correct" idealised conception of the piece.
> 
> If F had said that there was an ideal conception of a piece of music (akin to Plato's forms), then the idea is one you could agree or disagree with: fine. He did not say that, though: he said there is one correct execution which is inherent in the music. I don't buy that, and also find it odd that it is the F fans who seem keenest to complain against a straightjacket, when F was indicating that he thought there was such a thing - the single correct execution.


[/QUOTE]

Not sure about your quoting of me in this post. I think I'm agreeing with your position on all this, and I think that was clear in my post.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope. I started this thread with the purpose of unearthing just how ridiculously brain dead this line of thinking is, and you've played the part extremely well. Congrats.


the line of thinking that music performance and listening enjoyment MUST be tethered to the apprehension of some "pie-in-the-sky" imaginary philosophical ideal is what is brain-dead...and you've proven the point with great precision and accuracy!! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> the line of thinking that music performance and listening enjoyment MUST be tethered to the apprehension of some "pie-in-the-sky" imaginary philosophical ideal is what is brain-dead...and you've proven the point with great precision and accuracy!! :lol:


And I'll ask again the question you utterly have failed to answer: How do you explain Furtwängler's enduring appeal?


----------



## Heck148

Not sure about your quoting of me in this post. I think I'm agreeing with your position on all this, and I think that was clear in my post.[/QUOTE]

yes, I see that, I amended my previous posting...


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And I'll ask again the question you utterly have failed to answer: How do you explain Furtwängler's enduring appeal?


How do you explain Toscanini's enduring appeal, and his over-riding influence on conducting and music performance??


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I am not saying there are not different ways of interpreting a great masterpiece. Where I resist is the seeming baffling thesis that conductors who play it 'allegro con brio' as Beethoven obviously intended and not a deal slower like Furtwangler and Klemperer are automatically 'metronomic'. It appears to me people make these things up to justify a weak thesis.


No one has claimed that.

Another DavidA argument bites the dust.


----------



## Woodduck

Speaking as one who has remained largely aloof from whatever it is that's going on here, I would just like to say that this looks to me like one of the most poorly conducted debates I've ever seen on this forum. And the fact that the debate is happening on two threads simultaneously makes it worse.

What is the actual question at issue here? Could someone define it? What is the essential difference of opinion that's producing all this repetitious verbiage? My suspicion is that the people attacking each other differ less in their beliefs than they appear to, and that people's ideas are being caricatured and misrepresented. Is Brahmsianhorn really claiming that a conductor can't stand at the podium and make good music without having an explicit philosophical or religious concept in his head? Was Furtwangler, standing on the podium taking his musician through a score, really "focusing on an artificial, imaginary construct of ultimate philosophical truth," as Heck148 suggests? Is Heck148 really presenting "brain dead diatribes on how musicians should be no more than unthinking trained monkeys," as Brahmsianhorn claims? Was Toscanini an unthinking trained monkey?

Someone dropping into this thread would be quite justified in wondering what in the name of Beelzebub it's all about.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> How do you explain Toscanini's enduring appeal, and his over-riding influence on conducting and music performance??


People who relate at that level of understanding need a champion. So simple clarity and articulation works for them.

The problem for you is that your definition of Furtwängler as based on some imaginary, made up aspects of the music DOES NOT explain how he connects with his audience. Obviously someone sees what you are missing. Your simple-minded explanation is that because you cannot personally see it, therefore it must not exist. A college dropout could make the same exact argument against quantum physics. If you want to stay limited, have at it.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People who relate at that level of understanding need a champion. So simple clarity and articulation works for them.
> 
> The problem for you is that your definition of Furtwängler as based on some imaginary, made up aspects of the music DOES NOT explain how he connects with his audience. Obviously someone sees what you are missing. Your simple-minded explanation is that because you cannot personally see it, therefore it must not exist. A college dropout could make the same exact argument against quantum physics. If you want to stay limited, have at it.


You are so funny. You don't seem to realise that your own explanation is just as simple minded! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> Is Brahmsianhorn really claiming that a conductor can't stand at the podium and make good music without having an explicit philosophical or religious concept in his head?


Nope, never said or even implied that



Woodduck said:


> Was Furtwangler, standing on the podium taking his musician through a score, really "focusing on an artificial, imaginary construct of ultimate philosophical truth," as Heck148 suggests?


Obviously not



Woodduck said:


> Is Heck148 really presenting "brain dead diatribes on how musicians should be no more than unthinking trained monkeys," as Brahmsianhorn claims?


Pretty much



Woodduck said:


> Was Toscanini an unthinking trained monkey?


The grand irony is that he wasn't, but he wanted others to be and left this as the legacy of his "teaching"


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The grand irony is that [Toscanini] wasn't [a trained monkey], but he wanted others to be and left this as the legacy of his "teaching"


Evidence for this remarkable claim?


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The grand irony is that he wasn't, but he wanted others to be and left this as a legacy of his "teaching"


Would be nice to have different information (not Allegro con brio) from Toscanini proving the same thing.

EDIT: Woodduck got ahead of me


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Nope, never said or even implied that
> 
> Obviously not
> 
> Pretty much
> 
> *The grand irony is that he wasn't, but he wanted others to be and left this as the legacy of his "teaching*"


Interesting. I believe the only pupil Toscanini had was Cantelli. So you are saying he is the epitome of the 'trainee monkey'? Or are you going to make any other ridiculous statements to go with this one?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> Evidence for this remarkable claim?


I live in America


----------



## Woodduck

^^^And this relates to Toscanini how?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> ^^^And this relates to Toscanini how?


Toscanini's legacy of impersonal efficiency. Hell, I once had a college instructor tell me "Toscanini would never do that" because I had the audacity to try doing more than just beating time. "That just confuses people," is what he said.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Toscanini's legacy of impersonal efficiency. Hell, I once had a college instructor tell me "Toscanini would never do that" because I had the audacity to try doing more than just beating time. "That just confuses people," is what he said.


Well maybe it did apply to you. Tell me do you ever listen to music or do you have something going on in your head? Because your impression of Toscanini and other conductors is nothing like other people have. Impersonal efficiency is the last word I would apply to it. You seem to have a fixation


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Well maybe it did apply to you. Tell me do you ever listen to music or do you have something going on in your head? Because your impression of Toscanini and other conductors is nothing like other people have. Impersonal efficiency is the last word I would apply to it. You seem to have a fixation


My beef is with Toscanini's "philosophy." His recordings reveal that he was not really the objectivist he claimed to be. I honestly believe his protestation that he was truly faithful to the score was a form of self-aggrandizement masquerading as respect for the composer.

But that doesn't change the fact that compared to Furtwängler, Klemperer, Walter, Bohm, Bernstein, and Jochum, Toscanini's Beethoven sounded fundamentally wrong. Overdriven and ignorant of the harmonic progressions. This is the kind of thing that certain people refer to as "imaginary." Sorry, I don't condone willful ignorance.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My beef is with Toscanini's "philosophy." His recordings reveal that he was not really the objectivist he claimed to be. I honestly believe his protestation that he was truly faithful to the score was a form of self-aggrandizement masquerading as respect for the composer.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that compared to Furtwängler, Klemperer, Walter, Bohm, Bernstein, and Jochum, Toscanini's Beethoven sounded fundamentally wrong. Overdriven and ignorant of the harmonic progressions. This is the kind of thing that certain people refer to as "imaginary." Sorry, I don't condone willful ignorance.


I don't condone wilful ignorance either. It might sound fundamentally wrong to you but does it ever occurred to you that you might be fundamentally wrong in the way you listen to things? Does it ever occur to you that you might be the one who is wilfully ignorant? Does it ever occur to you that you might be the one who is wilfully ignorant? Or doesn't it ever occur to you as quite a few people have suggested that this is just a matter of personal preference or are you still insisting that you are the oracle of all musical wisdom? Or a man of Toscanini standing who Verdi entrusted his operas to might just know a little more than you?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck is presenting a classic false dilemma logical fallacy, where if you attach any meaning to the score at all other than the written instructions, you are engaging in grandiose philosophical exploration. That’s a false choice.

You can delve that deeply if you want, or you can simply say the music reminds you of a conversation with your grandmother. The point is relating the notes on the page to the human experience is the essential ingredient of bringing the music to life and connecting to the audience. I quoted Bruno Walter on this a few pages ago.

But Heck will ignore that and continue to try to caricature my statements. That’s what people do when they are cornered.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Wooduck and others, I have a very simple way to break this argument down:

Is the question “What does this music mean to me?” relevant to a performing musician?

I say yes. Furtwängler says yes. Bruno Walter says yes.

Toscanini says unequivocally no. Heck says unequivocally no.

THAT is the debate, simplified.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The point is relating the notes on the page to the human experience is the essential ingredient of bringing the music to life and connecting to the audience.


I'm not at all sure that that's in question here. What seems to be in question is what, exactly, "the human experience" is, and how a performer goes about relating the notes on the page to it.



> But Heck will ignore that and continue to try to caricature my statements. That's what people do when they are cornered.


I see caricaturing on both sides. Something about Toscanini wanting people to be trained monkeys...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wooduck and others, I have a very simple way to break this argument down:
> 
> Is the question "What does this music mean to me?" relevant to a performing musician?
> 
> I say yes. Furtwängler says yes. Bruno Walter says yes.
> 
> Toscanini says unequivocally no. Heck says unequivocally no.
> 
> THAT is the debate, simplified.


Has it ever occurred to you you might be wrong? Or hasn't even occurred to you that might be other ways of looking at things other than how things were done nearly 100 years ago?


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wooduck and others, I have a very simple way to break this argument down:
> 
> Is the question "What does this music mean to me?" relevant to a performing musician?
> 
> I say yes. Furtwängler says yes. Bruno Walter says yes.
> 
> Toscanini says unequivocally no. Heck says unequivocally no.
> 
> THAT is the debate, simplified.


That isn't what it looks like to me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> That isn't what it looks like to me.


How could it be any more clear?

"To some it is Napoleon. To some it is philosophical struggle. To me it is Allegro con brio."

How else do you interpret this? You either attach personal meaning to the score, or you act as an objective conduit. Heck has made this very clear in his support of this statement.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> I'm not at all sure that that's in question here. What seems to be in question is what, exactly, "the human experience" is, and how a performer goes about relating the notes on the page to it.
> 
> I see caricaturing on both sides. Something about Toscanini wanting people to be trained monkeys...


You are being overly kind here. The other side is claiming that human experience is irrelevant to the discussion. To the extent you remove personal feelings, thoughts, experience, and imagination, I refer to said performer as a trained monkey. Maybe a very musical trained monkey in the generic sense, but a trained monkey all the same.

By contrast, claiming that I am requiring deep religious or philosophical treatment of the score IS a distortion of what I am saying. Personal meaning doesn't have to be deeply metaphysical. I don't see Furtwängler calling the Marcia funebre "tearless grief" as being anything other than a relation to the human experience.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are being overly kind here. The other side is claiming that human experience is irrelevant to the discussion. To the extent you remove personal feelings, thoughts, experience, and imagination, I refer to said performer as a trained monkey. Maybe a very musical trained monkey in the generic sense, but a trained monkey all the same.


I don't know that I'm particularly kind, but I do try to be objective and clear. As both a creative artist and musical performer, I've often noted that the ways in which art relates to life are subtle and not easily articulated in words, if they can be articulated at all. If, as you say, Toscanini was not quite the literalist (or "trained monkey") he's sometimes accused of being - if his music-making is actually expressive in some significant way that made it compelling to audiences - is it not reasonable, and perhaps unavoidable, to conclude that his articulation of a score was in some way affected by his "human experience"? Or do you define human experience in some specific way that would exclude his work?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> I don't know that I'm particularly kind, but I do try to be objective and clear. As both a creative artist and musical performer, I've often noted that the ways in which art relates to life are subtle and not easily articulated in words, if they can be articulated at all. If, as you say, Toscanini was not quite the literalist (or "trained monkey") he's sometimes accused of being - if his music-making is actually expressive in some significant way that made it compelling to audiences - is it not reasonable, and perhaps unavoidable, to conclude that his articulation of a score was in some way affected by his "human experience"? Or do you define human experience in some specific way that would exclude his work?


I absolutely believe Toscanini was a hypocrite who didn't practice what he preached, and I have made that clear. It doesn't mean I can't still take issue with what he preached!

The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I absolutely believe Toscanini was a hypocrite who didn't practice what he preached, and I have made that clear. It doesn't mean I can't still take issue with what he preached!
> 
> *The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind.*


I think in Toscanini's case it's the other way around... Although I'd still be happy to hear something more he said except that Allegro con brio quote.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I absolutely believe Toscanini was a hypocrite who didn't practice what he preached, and I have made that clear. It doesn't mean I can't still take issue with what he preached!
> 
> The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind.


What did his preaching consist of, other than the one statement?


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> I'll be "fair" to DavidA when he starts being fair to the forum and refrains from throwing shallow, ignorant, sarcastic remarks at people (preceded by "my friend") just to see if he can get a reaction.
> 
> I'd like to know where I can buy a can of troll repellant.


The "ignore" option comes in handy at times.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> What did his preaching consist of, other than the one statement?


My own opinion is that Toscanini was simply an egomaniac who used statements like this to justify himself against conducting rivals who understood the music more thoroughly. Incongruent statements and logical fallacies are handy tools in that endeavor.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My own opinion is that Toscanini was simply an egomaniac who used statements like this to justify himself against conducting rivals who understood the music more thoroughly. Incongruent statements and logical fallacies are handy tools in that endeavor.


What other statements he made though? Is there anything but that one statement to support such an argument? He definitely wasn't the only conductor who was a bit of an egomaniac and I don't think that, in itself, that's always negative when it comes to artistic self-expression. Even _if_ he tried to downplay other conductors, it doesn't say anything about his own music-making. I'm not so well acquainted with Toscanini's conducting style but I'm more than sure that there are people who'd disagree with the statement that he didn't have thorough understanding of the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1. You can read about Toscanini and objectivity. Heck declared recently that the Toscanini/objective school “won,” so you can ask Heck to expound on that.

2. My opinion is that Toscanini had a limited, simplistic understanding of the meaning of great music and the harmonic language. It’s an opinion, and no opinion is irrefutable.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. You can read about Toscanini and objectivity. Heck declared recently that the Toscanini/objective school "won," so you can ask Heck to expound on that.


Let's try to sort out one thing at a time. You claimed that he preached objectivity. Is there any other proof of that from things Toscanini said or wrote?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My own opinion is that Toscanini was simply an egomaniac who used statements like this to justify himself against conducting rivals who understood the music more thoroughly. Incongruent statements and logical fallacies are handy tools in that endeavor.


Oh so a revelation! Toscanini was the only egomaniac who ever conducted? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1. You can read about Toscanini and objectivity. Heck declared recently that the Toscanini/objective school "won," so you can ask Heck to expound on that.
> 
> 2. My opinion is that Toscanini had a limited, simplistic understanding of the meaning of great music and the harmonic language. It's an opinion, and no opinion is irrefutable.


So you stand in contradiction to all the great musicians who work with Toscanini including Verdi?


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My opinion is that Toscanini had a limited, simplistic understanding of the meaning of great music and the harmonic language. It's an opinion, and no opinion is irrefutable.


Refusing to respond to people's observations or answer their questions doesn't lend much credibility to an opinion. An opinion not backed up by good evidence is hardly _worth_ refuting.

The opinion that a celebrated conductor was a hypocritical egomaniac with a simplistic understanding of harmony and of the meaning of music, and that this defective conductor believed or claimed that making music was a soulless, mechanical exercise, strikes me as harsh and risky, and very much in need of evidential support. Toscanini had an extremely long and successful musical career; he played in an orchestra under Verdi, and lived until, I believe, 1954. My own acquaintance with his work is limited to a relative handful of recordings, most made toward the end of his career when he was a old man. His late recordings have dry, shallow sound, and are generally considered not representative of his best work. Even so, his recordings of Verdi are highly regarded, and considered unsurpassed by many.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I just wonder about the passions of those who do, and find some of their rhetoric and debate tactics open to question.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck, I have been listening to Toscanini for nearly three decades. I’m entitled to have an opinion on the man. Good grief, I’ve explained my opinion on him throughout this thread, including just today. I even linked two of his recordings on previous pages and discussed my reaction. Google “Toscanini” and “objective” if you need more. I have a book called “Understanding Toscanini.” Find it on Amazon. Or ask Heck, since he has stated the Toscanini school has “won” over the subjective school.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

And by the way, even his Verdi is subject to the same criticisms of being overly driven. I believe the Penguin Guide stated that in his famed Otello, “for all his flowing lines, Toscanini does not always allow the music its full repose.” I have the same reaction to his Requiem. Give me De Sabata for actual depth.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And by the way, even his Verdi is subject to the same criticisms of being overly driven. I believe the Penguin Guide stated that in his famed Otello, "for all his flowing lines, Toscanini does not always allow the music its full repose."


Negative things could be said about any conductor. No performance is perfect but some are considered more perfect than others, by the critics at least.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> Refusing to respond to people's observations or answer their questions doesn't lend much credibility to an opinion. An opinion not backed up by good evidence is hardly _worth_ refuting.
> 
> The opinion that a celebrated conductor was a hypocritical egomaniac with a simplistic understanding of harmony and of the meaning of music, and that this defective conductor believed or claimed that making music was a soulless, mechanical exercise, strikes me as harsh and risky, and very much in need of evidential support. Toscanini had an extremely long and successful musical career; he played in an orchestra under Verdi, and lived until, I believe, 1954. My own acquaintance with his work is limited to a relative handful of recordings, most made toward the end of his career when he was a old man. His late recordings have dry, shallow sound, and are generally considered not representative of his best work. Even so, *his recordings of Verdi are highly regarded, and considered unsurpassed by many.*
> 
> I don't have a dog in this fight. I just wonder about the passions of those who do, and find some of their rhetoric and debate tactics open to question.


Yes! I think nationality is one thing that has to be considered at least to some extent when comparing Toscanini to other conductors. An interesting thing I've recently noticed is that there often exists a certain trend and relation between conductor's nationality and the repertoire he's good at. Many of the great Beethoven conductors were German, had lived or studied in Germany, worked with German orchestras etc. While many Northern European conductors (Järvis, Blomstedt, Salonen) have made some quite well-regarded recordings of composers like Nielsen and Sibelius. Then there are the Russian conductors - for example, while Gergiev's Wagner isn't overly much praised, his _Eugene Onegin_ is wonderful and Petrenko's Shostakovich quite loved. I'm not sure if Serafin conducted a single Wagner opera in German but his Italian opera recordings are among the most praised ones.

Conducting requires a certain connection and understanding between composer's music and the conductor. Having grown up in a similar environment and cultural atmosphere as the composer certainly strengthens that connection and thus could partly explain why such trends exist. (PS! There are many many exceptions as well of course.) Even listener can feel such "special" connection with music of some certain composer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> Negative things could be said about any conductor. No performance is perfect but some are considered more perfect than others, by the critics at least.


Sorry, my faux pas. I will cease having opinions and simply purchase every recording made by everybody.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And by the way, even his Verdi is subject to the same criticisms of being overly driven. I believe the Penguin Guide stated that in his famed Otello, "for all his flowing lines, Toscanini does not always allow the music its full repose."


His La Bohème is infinitely enjoyable for me. I haven't heard any other performance even close to it. The objectivist or literalist characterization of Toscanini that came from his admirer seems overblown for me.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Woodduck, I have been listening to Toscanini for nearly three decades. I'm entitled to have an opinion on the man. Good grief, I've explained my opinion on him throughout this thread, including just today. I even linked two of his recordings on previous pages and discussed my reaction. Google "Toscanini" and "objective" if you need more. I have a book called "Understanding Toscanini." Find it on Amazon. Or ask Heck, since he has stated the Toscanini school has "won" over the subjective school.


You are entitled to your opinion. Whether anyone agrees with it is another matter.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Favorite Toscanini recordings:
> 
> Beethoven 3rd, 1939
> Beethoven 5th, 1933
> Beethoven 7th, 1936
> Beethoven 9th, 1938
> Beethoven, Missa Solemnis, 1940
> Brahms 1st, 1941
> Brahms 4th, 1935
> Cherubini, Symphony, Overtures
> Puccini, La boheme, studio RCA
> Respighi, Tone poems
> Rossini, Overtures
> Schumann 3rd, 1949
> Shostakovich 7th
> Tchaikovsky 6th, 1941
> Tchaikovsky, Piano Concerto No. 1 , 1943 w/Horowitz
> Verdi, Requiem, 1940
> Verdi, Falstaff, studio RCA
> Verdi, Otello, studio RCA


What a harsh, obstinate fellow this BH is


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And by the way, even his Verdi is subject to the same criticisms of being overly driven. I believe the Penguin Guide stated that in his famed Otello, "for all his flowing lines, Toscanini does not always allow the music its full repose." I have the same reaction to his Requiem. Give me De Sabata for actual depth.


Pity Verdi isn't still around - he'd be glad of your corrective of the man who actually played under him and whose conducting of his works he himself admired! I have the Penguin Guide in front of me and it does not say any such thing about the Otello. The problem I find with it is that Vinay and Valengo's voices sound very similar as recorded and Nelli is not the greatest Desdemona. But who cannot vouch for the historical nature of the recording conducted by the man who played under Verdi himself? That doesn't mean there are not other equally valid recordings but Toscanini has a unique historicity.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What a harsh, obstinate fellow this BH is


This is a great list. I share most of your sentiment toward Toscanini, I am just less negative about them. His Brahms made me love Brahms but they are not what I return to anymore.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Woodduck, I have been listening to Toscanini for nearly three decades. I'm entitled to have an opinion on the man. Good grief, I've explained my opinion on him throughout this thread, including just today. I even linked two of his recordings on previous pages and discussed my reaction. Google "Toscanini" and "objective" if you need more. I have a book called "Understanding Toscanini." Find it on Amazon. Or ask Heck, since he has stated the Toscanini school has "won" over the subjective school.


I may question Heck at some point, but at the moment I'm trying to get some clarity from you.

I've read that Toscanini was pretty knowledgeable about painting and about literature, including Shakespeare and Goethe. Doesn't that suggest some concern with the "human experience"? Do you really think he believed there was no connection between the art of music and the other arts?

I also know that Toscanini's _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth in 1931 was the slowest on record for that house at 4 hours and 42 minutes, outdoing even Knappertsbusch at his slowest, and was considered quite remarkable. No one can conduct that opera successfully without a throrough grasp of its harmonic language, particularly at the tempos he must have taken. I doubt that there was anything "simplistic" about his understanding of the score.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What a harsh, obstinate fellow this BH is


No just one with whom we disagree. I'm sure you're a fine music lover with dated tastes.


----------



## DavidA

One problem we have with Toscanini is that so much of his output is wretchedly recorded in the thin, dry sound of Studio 8-H. This puts the recordings immediately at a disadvantage as it makes them sound more hard driven than they actually were.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> I may question Heck at some point, but at the moment I'm trying to get some clarity from you.
> 
> I've read that Toscanini was pretty knowledgeable about painting and about literature, including Shakespeare and Goethe. Doesn't that suggest some concern with the "human experience"? Do you really think he believed there was no connection between the art of music and the other arts?
> 
> I also know that Toscanini's _Parsifal_ at Bayreuth in 1931 was the slowest on record for that house at 4 hours and 42 minutes, outdoing even Knappertsbusch at his slowest, and was considered quite remarkable. No one can conduct that opera successfully without a throrough grasp of its harmonic language, particularly at the tempos he must have taken. I doubt that there was anything "simplistic" about his understanding of the score.


Didn't I already make this point? He was a fine artist who played with heart, and he was thus NOT what he portrayed himself as. I take issue with his philosophy - which really was a criticism aimed at conductors more gifted than him - similar to how posters will exaggerate the points made by others in a game of oneupmanship. Everyone is in the same boat. We are fallible humans trying to understand the universe.

By the way, I have no doubt Heck knows there is more to music than simply following the score markings, or generically following the skills of musicianship you are taught in school. I'm just trying to get him to admit it. I'm guessing he avoids it because he sees it as a slippery slope. But you can't avoid it, as these threads demonstrate.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> No just one with whom we disagree. I'm sure you're a fine music lover with dated tastes.


This fly keeps buzzing around the house. Just when you think it may have found its way outside, it turns up again with its infernal buzzing. What it finds so appealing about humans with "dated tastes" I just can't figure out...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> One problem we have with Toscanini is that so much of his output is wretchedly recorded in the thin, dry sound of Studio 8-H. This puts the recordings immediately at a disadvantage as it makes them sound more hard driven than they actually were.


His best stuff was the Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. Ironically enough I find Reiner the second best in both with the benefit of fantastic sound quality. My favorite repertoire for both of them.

But his Verdi is also special, no doubt. I only wish we had more De Sabata to go with his unmatched Puccini Tosca and Verdi Requiem. What a conductor he was!!!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ The trick is not minding that it "buzzes"


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Didn't I already make this point? He was a fine artist who played with heart, and he was thus NOT what he portrayed himself as. I take issue with his philosophy - which really was a criticism aimed at conductors more gifted than him - similar to how posters will exaggerate the points made by others in a game of oneupmanship. Everyone is in the same boat. We are fallible humans trying to understand the universe.
> 
> By the way, I have no doubt Heck knows there is more to music than simply following the score markings, or generically following the skills of musicianship you are taught in school. I'm just trying to get him to admit it. I'm guessing he avoids it because he sees it as a slippery slope. But you can't avoid it, as these threads demonstrate.


I'm not so sure that Toscanini's "allegro con brio" comment amounts to a "philosophy." Do you know the context in which that statement was made? And how exactly DID he portray himself?


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His best stuff was the Rossini overtures and Respighi tone poems. Ironically enough I find Reiner the second best in both with the benefit of fantastic sound quality. My favorite repertoire for both of them.
> 
> But his Verdi is also special, no doubt. I only wish we had more De Sabata to go with his unmatched Puccini Tosca and Verdi Requiem. What a conductor he was!!!


I think De Sabata would be at least as legendary as Toscanini had he had a different, more international career. Opera collectors know. There are some excerpts from a performance of _Tristan_ at La Scala that must have been a shattering experience.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Didn't I already make this point? He was a fine artist who played with heart, and he was thus NOT what he portrayed himself as. I take issue with his philosophy - *which really was a criticism aimed at conductors more gifted than him* - similar to how posters will exaggerate the points made by others in a game of oneupmanship. Everyone is in the same boat. We are fallible humans trying to understand the universe.


Conductors more gifted than him? The man who revolutionised conducting? The man whom Verdi and Boito admired when he was only a young man? The man whom Verdi - never the most generous of critics - went to after Falstaff and said: "Grazie! Grazie! Grazie!" Toscanini was a phenomenon as a conductor. Of course, his wasn't the only way but in the light of Toscanini's achievement your put down strikes me it says more about you than him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> I'm not so sure that Toscanini's "allegro con brio" comment amounts to a "philosophy." Do you know the context in which that statement was made?


Here's an attempt to explain it: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/5/17/the-aesthetic-brilliance-of-toscanini-and-furtwangler/

"An interesting corollary of this philosophy is that history is more or less irrelevant. The eponymous conductor who concretized this aesthetic, Arturo Toscanini, once said of Beethoven's Eroica, "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is philosophical struggle; to me it is Allegro con brio." To immerse oneself in the historicism and socio-economic background of the work is to get caught up in its spirit, to empathize too much, to seek to portray too much of the impressions which will inevitably be colored by your own perceptions. It is to lose one's sense of remaining outside, to lose objectivity. The music must be played using the context of performance and the context of annotation."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
And of course my reaction to this is that truth - real truth - lies within our perceptions, not outside of them. You cannot divorce the two.

Heck/Toscanini disagree.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Here's an attempt to explain it: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/5/17/the-aesthetic-brilliance-of-toscanini-and-furtwangler/
> 
> "An interesting corollary of this philosophy is that history is more or less irrelevant. The eponymous conductor who concretized this aesthetic, Arturo Toscanini, once said of Beethoven's Eroica, "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is philosophical struggle; to me it is Allegro con brio." To immerse oneself in the historicism and socio-economic background of the work is to get caught up in its spirit, to empathize too much, to seek to portray too much of the impressions which will inevitably be colored by your own perceptions. It is to lose one's sense of remaining outside, to lose objectivity. The music must be played using the context of performance and the context of annotation."


But it seems to be that the Allegro con brio statement is the only thing supporting that "philosophy". Now that I've read some things, I rather think that Toscanini's philosophy was that composer is more important than conductor. Conductor is supposed to convey what composer, not he himself, wants to communicate. I don't see anything wrong with that.

His Wagner was hailed as thoroughly Wagnerian in its style. I have no idea how anyone could say that about a conductor who doesn't look beyond the score.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> And of course my reaction to this is that truth - real truth - lies within our perceptions, not outside of them. You cannot divorce the two.
> 
> Heck/Toscanini disagree.


great! So Hitler and Stalin both had the truth because it lay within their perceptions?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Oh, lookey what we have here. This is from 1986, kiddos: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/arts/furtwanglers-way-conducting-as-a-creative-art.html

"The posthumous vindication of Wilhelm Furtwangler is gratifying to those who have long admired the mystical, transcendent power of the conductor's interpretations, but it is hardly surprising in view of contemporary musical tastes. Whether or not one accepts the notion of a new Romanticism, there is no denying that subjectivity and overt emotionalism are once again fashionable. After decades of Toscanini-inspired discipline and objectivity, the pendulum has once again swung toward a more expressive position. Furtwangler - a personification of the German Romantic tradition - has benefited immensely from this development.

Had he been alive today, he would have been particularly gratified by his belated acceptance in America. For Furtwangler's relationship with American orchestras and audiences was consistently stormy. His highly personal interpretations clashed with the more rigid stance of Arturo Toscanini, who held America in thrall during the 1930's and 1940's."

COUGH, COUGH

(Hmmm, hope I don't have Covid)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> great! So Hitler and Stalin both had the truth because it lay within their perceptions?


Do you know the difference between the truth lying within our perceptions vs one person having a monopoly on truth? Why do you think we have democracy?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Here's an attempt to explain it: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/5/17/the-aesthetic-brilliance-of-toscanini-and-furtwangler/
> 
> "An interesting corollary of this philosophy is that history is more or less irrelevant. The eponymous conductor who concretized this aesthetic, Arturo Toscanini, once said of Beethoven's Eroica, "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is philosophical struggle; to me it is Allegro con brio." To immerse oneself in the historicism and socio-economic background of the work is to get caught up in its spirit, to empathize too much, to seek to portray too much of the impressions which will inevitably be colored by your own perceptions. It is to lose one's sense of remaining outside, to lose objectivity. The music must be played using the context of performance and the context of annotation."


You are now making the mistake of taking one quote from a man and saying that all his conducting was based around this and nothing else. Somewhat of a tunnel vision you have isn't it? You don't honestly think anyone takes such a view seriously?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Do you know the difference between the truth lying within our perceptions vs one person having a monopoly on truth? Why do you think we have democracy?


Exactly. Why you are wrong when you talk about 'truth lying within our perceptions'


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh, lookey what we have here. This is from 1986, kiddos: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/arts/furtwanglers-way-conducting-as-a-creative-art.html
> 
> "The posthumous vindication of Wilhelm Furtwangler is gratifying to those who have long admired the mystical, transcendent power of the conductor's interpretations, but it is hardly surprising in view of contemporary musical tastes. Whether or not one accepts the notion of a new Romanticism, there is no denying that subjectivity and overt emotionalism are once again fashionable. After decades of Toscanini-inspired discipline and objectivity, the pendulum has once again swung toward a more expressive position. Furtwangler - a personification of the German Romantic tradition - has benefited immensely from this development.
> 
> Had he been alive today, he would have been particularly gratified by his belated acceptance in America. For Furtwangler's relationship with American orchestras and audiences was consistently stormy. His highly personal interpretations clashed with the more rigid stance of Arturo Toscanini, who held America in thrall during the 1930's and 1940's."
> 
> COUGH, COUGH
> 
> (Hmmm, hope I don't have Covid)


Oh great! You have been trawling the internet to desperately find something to prop up your case. Fantastic! Note that it was Toscanini who held America in thrall during the 1930s and 1940s btw not Furtwangler!

Just a point. I don't understand your fanaticism on this. OK you prefer Furtwangler. I have no problem with it. But why in your fanatical zeal for Furtwangler must you diss every other conductor? Why do you have to go on making the same point again and again? Do you think the more times you say it the more convincing it will become? It doesn't.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Oh great! You have been trawling the internet to desperately find something to prop up your case. Fantastic! Note that it was Toscanini who held America in thrall during the 1930s and 1940s btw not Furtwangler!


Were other posters not asking me for more information about Toscanini's philosophy and specifically that quote? Your obsession with grasping at every and any straw to attack me is...creepy.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Were other posters not asking me for more information about Toscanini's philosophy and specifically that quote? Your obsession with grasping at every and any straw to attack me is...creepy.


Other posters were not asking for more information about Furtwangler on a thread about Toscanini. Frankly I find your obsession with this worrying. Is it that you want desperately to be proved right in a matter where only opinion matters?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Other posters were not asking for more information about Furtwangler on a thread about Toscanini. Frankly I find your obsession with this worrying. Is it that you want desperately to be proved right in a matter where only opinion matters?


Do you understand that you can't discuss one school of thought without discussing the other? The whole point is their opposition to one another.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

"I hate Toscanini. I’ve never heard him in a concert hall, but I’ve heard enough of his recordings. What he does to music is terrible in my opinion. He chops it up into a hash and then pours a disgusting sauce over it. Toscanini ‘honoured’ me by conducting my symphonies. I heard those records, too, and they’re worthless. I’ve read about Toscanini’s conducting style and his manner of conducting a rehearsal. The people who describe this disgraceful behaviour are for some reason delighted by it. I simply can’t understand what they find delightful. I think it’s outrageous, not delightful. He screams and curses the musicians and makes scenes in the most shameless manner. The poor musicians have to put up with all this nonsense or be sacked. And they even begin to see ‘something in it’. (…) Toscanini sent me his recording of m Seventh Symphony and hearing it made me very angry. Everything is wrong. The spirit and the character and the tempi. It’s a sloppy, hack job. I wrote him a letter expressing my views. I don’t know if he ever got it; maybe he did and pretended not to – that would be completely in keeping with his vain and egoistic style. Why do I think that Toscanini didn’t let it be known that I wrote to him? Because much later I received a letter from America: I was elected to the Toscanini Society! They must have thought that I was a great fan of the maestro’s. I began receiving records on a regular basis: all new recordings by Toscanini. My only comfort is that at least I always have a birthday present handy. Naturally, I wouldn’t give something like that to a friend. But to an acquaintance-why not?"


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Do you understand that you can't discuss one school of thought without discussing the other? The whole point is their opposition to one another.


Wrong. In the light of history we can see them as complementary. It's interesting that Solti talked about the tremendous effect Toscanini had on conducting then added they had become a bit more romantic and swing a bit more towards Furtwangler. You see you need to see them from the light of history and not with tunnel vision. History gives a sense of perspective


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And by the way, even his Verdi is subject to the same criticisms of being overly driven. I believe the Penguin Guide stated that in his famed Otello, "for all his flowing lines, Toscanini does not always allow the music its full repose." I have the same reaction to his Requiem. Give me De Sabata for actual depth.





DavidA said:


> I have the Penguin Guide in front of me and it does not say any such thing about the Otello.


Just got home, opened my 1994 Penguin Guide, and it says almost exactly verbatim what I recalled. Maybe you should take a timeout at this point. Quit while you're ahead. :lol:

"and Toscanini, for all his flowing lines fails to allow the full repose needed."

.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Here's an attempt to explain it: https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/5/17/the-aesthetic-brilliance-of-toscanini-and-furtwangler/
> 
> "An interesting corollary of this philosophy is that history is more or less irrelevant. The eponymous conductor who concretized this aesthetic, Arturo Toscanini, once said of Beethoven's Eroica, "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is philosophical struggle; to me it is Allegro con brio." To immerse oneself in the historicism and socio-economic background of the work is to get caught up in its spirit, to empathize too much, to seek to portray too much of the impressions which will inevitably be colored by your own perceptions. It is to lose one's sense of remaining outside, to lose objectivity. The music must be played using the context of performance and the context of annotation."


This tells us what Manasi Vydyanath thinks Toscanini was doing. I'm asking what Toscanini himself thought he was doing, beyond one endlessly reiterated statement the context of which no one seems to know. You've objected to Toscanini's "philosophy" of musical interpretation. Great. What was it?


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "I hate Toscanini. I've never heard him in a concert hall, but I've heard enough of his recordings. What he does to music is terrible in my opinion. He chops it up into a hash and then pours a disgusting sauce over it. Toscanini 'honoured' me by conducting my symphonies. I heard those records, too, and they're worthless. I've read about Toscanini's conducting style and his manner of conducting a rehearsal. The people who describe this disgraceful behaviour are for some reason delighted by it. I simply can't understand what they find delightful. I think it's outrageous, not delightful. He screams and curses the musicians and makes scenes in the most shameless manner. The poor musicians have to put up with all this nonsense or be sacked. And they even begin to see 'something in it'. (…) Toscanini sent me his recording of m Seventh Symphony and hearing it made me very angry. Everything is wrong. The spirit and the character and the tempi. It's a sloppy, hack job. I wrote him a letter expressing my views. I don't know if he ever got it; maybe he did and pretended not to - that would be completely in keeping with his vain and egoistic style. Why do I think that Toscanini didn't let it be known that I wrote to him? Because much later I received a letter from America: I was elected to the Toscanini Society! They must have thought that I was a great fan of the maestro's. I began receiving records on a regular basis: all new recordings by Toscanini. My only comfort is that at least I always have a birthday present handy. Naturally, I wouldn't give something like that to a friend. But to an acquaintance-why not?"


*?*..........................


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
Shostakovich?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> *?*..........................


This quote from Shostakovich's memoir shows two things (apart from being full of ironies):

1. Shostakovich was not a big fan of Toscanini's conducting ("what he does to music is terrible"), of Toscanini's abusive practices ("disgraceful behaviour"), and of Toscanini's character ("vain and egoistic").

2. It is a myth that Toscanini is the hero who always remains faithful to the composer. Toscanini's American premiere of Shostakovich's 7th is a complete failure in his eye ("Everything is wrong. The spirit and the character and the tempi. It's a sloppy hack job."). Toscanini also failed to address Dimitri's criticism in an honest way ("I wrote him a letter expressing my views. I don't know if he ever got it; maybe he did and pretended not to")

Given that Shostakovich was the hottest composer at that time and was alive. This little quote demystifies the view that Toscanini is anything but individualist and egoistic in his approach - he simply preferred music to be played his way, even at the expense of the poor NBC musicians and of losing the "spirit" of the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> This tells us what Manasi Vydyanath thinks Toscanini was doing. I'm asking what Toscanini himself thought he was doing, beyond one endlessly reiterated statement the context of which no one seems to know. You've objected to Toscanini's "philosophy" of musical interpretation. Great. What was it?


I've stated it throughout this thread. Heck has stated it better than I ever could:



Heck148 said:


> This idea of an extra-musical, pseudo-philosophical, esoteric concept above and beyond the music is unsupportable - it certainly cannot be proven scientifically or empirically, therefore, it can be regarded as unnecessary, even superfluous to actual musical performance. I am not referring to specific programmatic intent by the composer, but rather some imagined, non-musical, metaphysical entity which supposedly hovers above and separate from the music itself.
> 
> Sloppy execution, ragged ensemble, lack of precision, in pursuit of this imagined objective of non-musical metaphysical "truth" is generally considered a negative attribute of performance. The composer's score certainly directs, indicates that notes should be sounded in rhythmic precision. [unless marked specifically random, or aleatoric]
> 
> The music can speak for itself.
> 
> But, it is not the performer's function, nor is it possible, to apply some sort of extra-musical, hypothetical "truth" to the music [ie - <<_play this passage like Beethoven's concept of Napoleon!!...um...what??_>>…It is the performer's duty to accurately present the work - precisely, expressively, based upon the actual score. Of course, proper interpretation is going to include style, phrasing, dynamics, attention to melodic/harmonic flow, timbral variation, performance practice, etc….all of these are direct musical concerns. None of these are dependent upon the apprehension, the capture by the performer, of some imaginary, extra-musical "truth".


Now, my response is twofold:

1) Of course this is nonsense. A 6-year-old could tell you what an instrumental piece is about without having to look at the score for direction.

2) I don't think anyone really believes it. The point is to assert self-aggrandizing superiority through supposed fidelity to the composer's intentions. It amounts to nothing more than a cheap attempt to discredit anyone who does a better job of connecting with the audience.

And most people have caught on, as these threads show. Nobody buys this nonsense anymore. It is a vestige of a post-war time in the US when Toscanini's legacy was considered above criticism. Thank God we have evolved.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This quote from Shostakovich's memoir shows two things (apart from being full of ironies):
> 
> 1. Shostakovich was not a big fan of Toscanini's conducting ("what he does to music is terrible"), of Toscanini's abusive practices ("disgraceful behaviour"), and of Toscanini's character ("vain and egoistic").
> 
> 2. It is a myth that Toscanini is the hero who always remains faithful to the composer. Toscanini's American premiere of Shostakovich's 7th is a complete failure in his eye ("Everything is wrong. The spirit and the character and the tempi. It's a sloppy hack job."). Toscanini also failed to address Dimitri's criticism in an honest way ("I wrote him a letter expressing my views. I don't know if he ever got it; maybe he did and pretended not to")
> 
> Given that Shostakovich was the hottest composer at that time and was alive. This little quote demystifies the view that Toscanini is anything but individualist and egoistic in his approach - he simply preferred music to be played his way, even at the expense of the poor NBC musicians and of losing the "spirit" of the music.


The keen observer of these threads realizes that Toscanini's "philosophy" amounts to nothing. It is no more than an ego trip thrust upon a generation of wannabes.

Toscanini the musician was excellent. Not the greatest, definitely flawed, but worthy of memory. It is his legacy that is the problem. We should never be in the business of truncating thought, limiting imagination, and lampooning open discussion.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The keen observer of these threads realizes that Toscanini's "philosophy" amounts to nothing. It is no more than an ego trip thrust upon a generation of wannabes.
> 
> Toscanini the musician was excellent. Not the greatest, definitely flawed, but worthy of memory. It is his legacy that is the problem. We should never be in the business of truncating thought, limiting imagination, and lampooning open discussion.


As far as I know, Toscanini was never really vocal about his "philosophy". The one that his great admirers gave him was not accurate either. His direct and driven approach has a broad appeal, for sure. And he might be the perfect antidote to the excessive Romanticism of his time. But I totally agree with your last sentence, the closedness of the philosophy that he apparently symbolizes for is both simplistic and limiting.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've stated it throughout this thread. Heck has stated it better than I ever could:
> 
> Now, my response is twofold:
> 
> 1) Of course this is nonsense. A 6-year-old could tell you what an instrumental piece is about without having to look at the score for direction.
> 
> 2) I don't think anyone really believes it. The point is to assert self-aggrandizing superiority through supposed fidelity to the composer's intentions. It amounts to nothing more than a cheap attempt to discredit anyone who does a better job of connecting with the audience.
> 
> And most people have caught on, as these threads show. Nobody buys this nonsense anymore. It is a vestige of a post-war time in the US when Toscanini's legacy was considered above criticism. Thank God we have evolved.


You haven't answered my exact question: what was Toscanini's "philosophy," and how do you know? What did he say about it, besides the one well-known remark? And what was the context of that remark?

Well, never mind then.

Are you saying that everything Heck148 said is nonsense? A number of his statements look like common sense to me. Others seem to be setting up a straw man. I believe he is strawmanning you, and you're doing it to him in turn. That's what happens when people are not careful to define their terms, and when they exaggerate their own positions in reaction to each other's rhetoric, thus setting up a vicious circle of decreasing credibility. Your notion of a "cheap attempt to discredit anyone who does a better job of connecting with the audience" is a perfect illustration of how things spiral off into irrationality. I'm sure Heck knows, as you know and I know, that neither Toscanini nor Furtwangler had any difficulty connecting with their audiences.

No, most people have not "caught on" to anything. Academics who theorize about how music "ought" to be conceived and performed are not "most people." Intelligent and heartfelt music-making is recognized, as it has always been, regardless of the personality, aesthetic approach, or extramusical philosophy of the performer. None of those factors is a test a musician must pass in order to be judged great by posterity. Music is the most intuitive of the arts, and the muse is no respecter of persons. Or philosophies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> You haven't answered my exact question: what was Toscanini's "philosophy," and how do you know? What did he say about it, besides the one well-known remark? And what was the context of that remark?
> 
> Well, never mind then.
> 
> Are you saying that everything Heck148 said is nonsense? A number of his statements look like common sense to me. Others seem to be setting up a straw man. I believe he is strawmanning you, and you're doing it to him in turn. That's what happens when people are not careful to define their terms, and when they exaggerate their own positions in reaction to each other's rhetoric, thus setting up a vicious circle of decreasing credibility. Your notion of a "cheap attempt to discredit anyone who does a better job of connecting with the audience" is a perfect illustration of how things spiral off into irrationality. I'm sure Heck knows, as you know and I know, that neither Toscanini nor Furtwangler had any difficulty connecting with their audiences.
> 
> No, most people have not "caught on" to anything. Academics who theorize about how music "ought" to be conceived and performed are not "most people." Intelligent and heartfelt music-making is recognized, as it has always been, regardless of the personality, aesthetic approach, or extramusical philosophy of the performer. None of those factors is a test a musician must pass in order to be judged great by posterity. Music is the most intuitive of the arts, and the muse is no respecter of persons. Or philosophies.


If we can stop arguing about authenticity and objectivity and simply make and enjoy music, I am 100% for it!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> No, most people have not "caught on" to anything. Academics who theorize about how music "ought" to be conceived and performed are not "most people." Intelligent and heartfelt music-making is recognized, as it has always been, regardless of the personality, aesthetic approach, or extramusical philosophy of the performer. None of those factors is a test a musician must pass in order to be judged great by posterity. Music is the most intuitive of the arts, and the muse is no respecter of persons. Or philosophies.


"What music ought to be" is a difficult question that any attempt to settle it once for all is not going to succeed. It is true that music is intuitive, but I am not sure it's "the most intuitive of the arts" (it's the most abstract of arts) and I don't think intuition is always a good guide either (intuition tells us the earth is flat).

Intuitively, "most people" don't find classical music intuitive or meaningful at all. Intuitively, most classical music lovers don't find Schoneberg, Boulez, or Stockhausen intuitive or meaningful at all. I have been a fan of Wagner for decades but I still don't find the music in Parsifal "intuitive". Something mawkish and banal may well appear to be "heart-felt" for many listeners. Intuition is trained and it's not the only way to approach music.

There is so much scientific evidence for behavioral/cognitive biases that it's safe to say that our "intuitive understanding" of music is influenced by "extra-musical" factors all the time. Literalists' greatest contribution, in my view, is to construct a widely accepted notion of authenticity for music-making. This facilitates clearer communication and grants a sense of progress (because there is some widely accepted standard). But literalists' project should not be taken literally because it's tentative version is far too limiting.

The reductionist aspects of music literalism are misapplied, in my view, because its atomic elements (such as historical tempi) have neither firm scientific nor philosophical foundation. They are not "intuitive" either. People who are used to old recordings of Beethoven may well find HIP performances rushed. The fact that musicians are treating "extra-musicals" as distinctly separable from music-making itself, is already a telling sign that music-making is getting alienated from the broader human experience.

And from my personal experience, I agree with BH's observation that Toscanini is much less relevant for younger generations of music lovers, especially outside the US. In southeast Asian where Classical music is having a revival (due to the emerging middle class), Karajan and Furtwanlger are very popular. The first generation of Japanese music critics were all ardent fans of Furtwangler, some of them have attended his concerts, alongside with other prominent Japanese musicians. This has a lasting impact on the entire region. The same can't be said about Toscanini. In the UK, it's more about Thomas Beecham and Adrian Boult in the prewar generation, I have not seen anyone crazy about Toscanini, for a long time living there. This whole issue looks very cultural-historical in my eyes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
The Japanese love them some Furt for sure. It’s almost worth its own fascination thread.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> The Japanese love them some Furt for sure. It's almost worth its own fascination thread.


Yes, Japan is the land of diehard Furtamentalist. (no they are not cultists, they are serious critics)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So, I have been listening to Schubert 9ths lately, and I tried out this acclaimed version from Toscanini with the Philadelphia Orchestra. It is a good listen, very impressive. But I almost cannot think of a better example of what we are talking about when we say that Toscanini was in no way a true "objectivist." This performance is unmistakably Toscanini. To my taste, it does sound driven. It has a "drill sergeant" feel in every movement. I don't hear charm, or grace, or any sort of empathy. Most of all, I feel like I am listening to Toscanini, not Schubert. That is MY OPINION. Yours may differ, which is fine. But the main point here is that it is absolute rubbish to claim that Toscanini was an objective conduit of the score. He was just as subjectively himself as Furtwangler or anyone else, and we can all debate about which sounds best to us. Once you start arguing that your way is objectively "correct" and the others "wrong," you are essentially in my view revealing your insecurities. Just say what you like, and if others don't agree, tough for them.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "What music ought to be" is a difficult question that any attempt to settle it once for all is not going to succeed. It is true that music is intuitive, but I am not sure it's "the most intuitive of the arts" (it's the most abstract of arts) and I don't think intuition is always a good guide either (intuition tells us the earth is flat).
> 
> Intuitively, "most people" don't find classical music intuitive or meaningful at all. Intuitively, most classical music lovers don't find Schoneberg, Boulez, or Stockhausen intuitive or meaningful at all. I have been a fan of Wagner for decades but I still don't find the music in Parsifal "intuitive". Something mawkish and banal may well appear to be "heart-felt" for many listeners. Intuition is trained and it's not the only way to approach music.
> 
> There is so much scientific evidence for behavioral/cognitive biases that it's safe to say that our "intuitive understanding" of music is influenced by "extra-musical" factors all the time. Literalists' greatest contribution, in my view, is to construct a widely accepted notion of authenticity for music-making. This facilitates clearer communication and grants a sense of progress (because there is some widely accepted standard). But literalists' project should not be taken literally because it's tentative version is far too limiting.
> 
> The reductionist aspects of music literalism are misapplied, in my view, because its atomic elements (such as historical tempi) have neither firm scientific nor philosophical foundation. They are not "intuitive" either. People who are used to old recordings of Beethoven may well find HIP performances rushed. The fact that musicians are treating "extra-musicals" as distinctly separable from music-making itself, is already a telling sign that music-making is getting alienated from the broader human experience.
> 
> And from my personal experience, I agree with BH's observation that Toscanini is much less relevant for younger generations of music lovers, especially outside the US. In southeast Asian where Classical music is having a revival (due to the emerging middle class), Karajan and Furtwanlger are very popular. The first generation of Japanese music critics were all ardent fans of Furtwangler, some of them have attended his concerts, alongside with other prominent Japanese musicians. This has a lasting impact on the entire region. The same can't be said about Toscanini. In the UK, it's more about Thomas Beecham and Adrian Boult in the prewar generation, I have not seen anyone crazy about Toscanini, for a long time living there. This whole issue looks very cultural-historical in my eyes.


I don't consider "what music ought to be" to be a _difficult_ question, since I don't even think it's a _legitimate_ question, except in delimited contexts. As a corollary to that, there is no particular way a performing musician "ought" to think about music in order to give his music-making effectiveness or legitimacy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the recipe or in the cook's culinary philosophy (whatever that might mean).

This discussion is, I believe, about musical performance (or at least it is so far). What I mean by music being "intuitive" is that in the act of performing a musician is guided by feeling and not by ideology or other extramusical considerations. Even the intellectual aspect of preparing and performing a work is ultimately a matter of discovering what _feels_ right. And since music is an art that deals in abstract sounds rather than images, concepts, or words, the performer's intuition is unconstrained by those things. He is free to be inspired by them, or by anything else in life, but in the moment of music-making, his task is to know, intuitively, what sounds must follow each other.

You say, "The reductionist aspects of music literalism are misapplied, in my view, because its atomic elements (such as historical tempi) have neither firm scientific nor philosophical foundation. They are not 'intuitive' either. People who are used to old recordings of Beethoven may well find HIP performances rushed. The fact that musicians are treating 'extra-musicals' as distinctly separable from music-making itself, is already a telling sign that music-making is getting alienated from the broader human experience."

I don't know what you mean by "treating 'extra-musicals' as distinctly separable from music-making itself," but I can assure you that when Mozart, Haydn and friends sat down to play string quartets they did not debate "extra-musicals" before lifting their bows and digging in. Whatever personal views anyone entertains about the place of music in human life, when bow meets string there is only music and the direct expression of feeling in sound.

I seriously doubt that music-making is significantly more alienated from the broader human experience than it ever was. It may be harder for people to hear centuries-old music as an expression of their present world and life experience, but that is simply the inevitable result of time passing and cultural change.

I can well believe that Toscanini is now less interesting to people than Furtwangler. There is a growing interest in the stylistic traits of Romantic performing practice, which we would naturally expect as the latest phase in our mining of the musical past. I'm inclined to think of Furtwangler as something of a throwback in his own day, yet certainly _sui generis_ - itself an attractively Romantic concept.


----------



## Heck148

> I would just like to say that this looks to me like one of the most poorly conducted debates I've ever seen on this forum. And the fact that the debate is happening on two threads simultaneously makes it worse.


I agree. terrible, anti-musical, contaminated by cult-like presentation of some personal faith-based beliefs. 


Woodduck said:


> Is Brahmsianhorn really claiming that a conductor can't stand at the podium and make good music without having an explicit philosophical or religious concept in his head?


Yes, that's how I see it. he has this quasi-religious cult idolatry of furtwangler...as if WF is the only conductor blessed with this ability of divine apprehension of BH's unsupportable concepts.



> Was Furtwangler, standing on the podium taking his musician through a score, really "focusing on an artificial, imaginary construct of ultimate philosophical truth," as Heck148 suggests?


BH certainly seems to think so.



> Is Heck148 really presenting "brain dead diatribes on how musicians should be no more than unthinking trained monkeys," as Brahmsianhorn claims? Was Toscanini an unthinking trained monkey?


Of course not - there have been so many great conductors and musicians who have presented wonderful performances, without having to capture some non-musical pie-in-the-sky metaphysical baggage. This premise that WF is the only conductor to possess this unique, quasi-divine "power" is total nonsense. Musicians are trained to play accurately, expressively, in the appropriate style, giving consideration to performing tradition. This does not involve apprehension of some ethereal, non-musical pursuit of make-believe concepts, despite BH's desperate, but futile insistence to the contrary.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People who relate at that level of understanding need a champion. So simple clarity and articulation works for them.


people who lack understanding need to engage of cult-like adoration of a "champion"



> The problem for you is that your definition of Furtwängler


DISMISSED - I've no interest in your cult-like proselytizing of your own personal faith-based beliefs, which you vainly try to pass off as scientific or authentic.
You must be a masochist to keep getting trashed incessantly for your inane silliness.


----------



## Heck148

WD: "Was Toscanini an unthinking trained monkey?"



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The grand irony is that he wasn't, but he wanted others to be and left this as the legacy of his "teaching"


absolute baloney. total nonsense. How can you post such idiocy on a public forum??


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> Interesting. I believe the only pupil Toscanini had was Cantelli. So you are saying he is the epitome of the 'trainee monkey'? Or are you going to make any other ridiculous statements to go with this one?


Didn't Max Goberman study with him, too?? not sure about it, tho...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> people who lack understanding need to engage of cult-like adoration of a "champion"
> 
> DISMISSED - I've no interest in your cult-like proselytizing of your own personal faith-based beliefs, which you vainly try to pass off as scientific or authentic.
> You must be a masochist to keep getting trashed incessantly for your inane silliness.


Your ad hominem attacks are just proof of insecurity


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> (Toscanini) Overdriven and ignorant of the harmonic progressions.....


more inane blathering....time to fold 'em, dude....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I agree. terrible, anti-musical, contaminated by cult-like adulation of some personal faith-based beliefs.
> 
> Yes, that's how I see it. he has this quasi-religious cult idolatry of furtwangler...as if WF is the only conductor blessed with this ability of divine apprehension of BH's unsupportable concepts.


I don't even believe in religion. This is sad to watch. Absolute meltdown.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> more inane blathering....time to fold 'em, dude....


You are unbelievably insecure


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck is presenting a classic false dilemma logical fallacy, where if you attach any meaning to the score at all other than the written instructions, you are engaging in grandiose philosophical exploration.


absolute bullsh*t. I have never maintained that. Quit lying, even tho it is the haven of those who have lost all credibility.

You consistently short-change the value of the score. for you, the score is only worthwhile if there is some mystical, non-musical "truth" hovering ethereally over the music - that "truth" only apprehensible your cult-idol WF. gawd, what bs....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wooduck and others, I have a very simple way to break this argument down:
> 
> Is the question "What does this music mean to me?" relevant to a performing musician?
> 
> I say yes. Furtwängler says yes.


?? Yes what??
You have every right to form your own faith-based beliefs regarding music, if it enhances your enjoyment of it. Great, have fun. You run into trouble when you try to posit it as some sort of scientific, empirical "truth", with which only certain musicians [objects of your adoration] may find communion...
sorry, not buying it, neither does the musical performing world.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> absolute bullsh*t. I have never maintained that. Quit lying, even tho it is the haven of those who have lost all credibility.
> 
> You consistently short-change the value of the score. for you, the score is only worthwhile if there is some mystical, non-musical "truth" hovering ethereally over the music - that "truth" only apprehensible your cult-idol WF. gawd, what bs....


So first you say I'm lying, and then you proceed to do exactly what I said you're doing...


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You either attach personal meaning to the score, or you act as an objective conduit.


False dichotomy....your "either/or" is flawed.
Toscanini did attach "personal meaning" to the score - it's Allegro con brio.
you cannot refute this...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> ?? Yes what??
> You have every right to form your own faith-based beliefs regarding music, if it enhances your enjoyment of it. Great, have fun. You run into trouble when you try to posit it as some sort of scientific, empirical "truth", with which only certain musicians [objects of your adoration] may find communion...
> sorry, not buying it, neither does the musical performing world.


The question was crystal clear. Then you proceed to spew some distortion of what I'm saying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> False dichotomy....your "either/or" is flawed.
> Toscanini did attach "personal meaning" to the score - it's Allegro con brio.
> you cannot refute this...


You are the one clinging to musical philosophy like it's a religion, not me. Toscanini had his subjective way, and Furtwängler had his. Neither was objectively "correct."


----------



## Heck148

annaw said:


> I think in Toscanini's case it's the other way around... Although I'd still be happy to hear something more he said except that Allegro con brio quote.


I've always liked this one:

"I kissed my first girl and smoked my first cigarette on the same day. I haven't had time for tobacco since."
:lol:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 2. My opinion is that Toscanini had a limited, simplistic understanding of the meaning of great music and the harmonic language. It's an opinion, and no opinion is irrefutable.


In your case, most certainly refutable...:devil::lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> In your case, most certainly refutable...:devil::lol:


The only thing irrefutable is how unbelievably insecure you must be to get so personal over a musical disagreement


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> And of course my reaction to this is that truth - real truth - lies within our perceptions, not outside of them. You cannot divorce the two.


Real truth?? sorry, you don't have a private channel to any such thing. neither did WF. 
However you are completely entitled to have your own faith-based personal beliefs and preferences.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh, lookey what we have here. This is from 1986, kiddos: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/arts/furtwanglers-way-conducting-as-a-creative-art.html
> 
> "The posthumous vindication of Wilhelm Furtwangler is gratifying to those who have long admired the mystical, transcendent power of the conductor's interpretations,"


WF's admirer's have every right to fabricate whatever ethereal, mystical constructs they so desire. if it brings them musical enjoyment, great....go buy more concert tickets!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Real truth?? sorry, you don't have a private channel to any such thing. neither did WF.
> However you are completely entitled to have your own faith-based personal beliefs and preferences.


Where the hell did I say that I and only I had a private channel??? Can you read???

Here is my ACTUAL QUOTE:

" And of course my reaction to this is that truth - real truth - lies within *our perceptions*, not outside of them. You cannot divorce the two."


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> I don't understand your fanaticism on this. OK you prefer Furtwangler. I have no problem with it. But why in your fanatical zeal for Furtwangler must you diss every other conductor? Why do you have to go on making the same point again and again? Do you think the more times you say it the more convincing it will become? It doesn't.


Exactly - well stated.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Exactly - well stated.


LOL, like you haven't dissed Furtwängler and touted Toscanini? Grow up, man


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've stated it throughout this thread. Heck has stated it better than I ever could:
> Now, my response is twofold:
> 
> 1)A 6-year-old could tell you what an instrumental piece is about without having to look at the score for direction.


 Oh, this is priceless...What is Brahms Sym #3 "about"?? I'd love to hear a 6-year-old's assessment..



> 2) The point is to assert self-aggrandizing superiority through supposed fidelity to the composer's intentions.


No, it should read: according to you - _The point is to assert self-aggrandizing superiority through supposed apprehension of imaginary "ideals" floating about in the "ether", that are extraneous and/or irrelevant to the composer's intentions.
_
And most people have caught on, as these threads show.[/QUOTE]
No, these threads have shown clearly that you have personal faith-based beliefs, that you are trying to pass off as some sort of "truth" that can be scientifically or empirically supported. of course you fail, you are frustrated, so you keep repeating the same discredited points over and over, and they continue to fail, over and over.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Your ad hominem attacks are just proof of insecurity


your obsession with presenting a flawed, discredited premise is proof of extreme insecurity.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Thank you for this thoughtful clarification. I thought the discussion is more about the appreciation of performances than performances themselves.



Woodduck said:


> I don't consider "what music ought to be" to be a _difficult_ question, since I don't even think it's a _legitimate_ question, except in delimited contexts. As a corollary to that, there is no particular way a performing musician "ought" to think about music in order to give his music-making effectiveness or legitimacy. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the recipe or in the cook's culinary philosophy (whatever that might mean).


I don't see how a gourmand can separate the "eating" from the recipe and culinary philosophy. It's about "why is this pudding so much more delicious than the other one" or "why this pudding tastes different than the other which makes it better". Nobody here is an advocate of bad puddings, I believe. If all you can say is "this pudding tastes different and is good", then you are not much of gourmand, are you?

Knowing one pudding is sweeter or has greater consistency than the other does not explain why it is good. The culture, the philosophy, the effort, and the tradition of preparing a pudding all matters for a gourmand. That's why a gourmand such as Dumas talks about Pliny and Aristides when he talks about the oyster, it's never just about the oyster. That's why you have to know a bit of Zen and the three schools of Tea ceremony to really appreciate drinking a bowl of matcha in a humble shack, it's never just about the matcha.

Appreciation, in my view, is never about either "analyze a work by itself" or "be content with getting a general impression", it has to do with figuring out what the work present in the giant web of symbols and meanings that give form to human experiences.



Woodduck said:


> I don't know what you mean by "treating 'extra-musicals' as distinctly separable from music-making itself," but I can assure you that when Mozart, Haydn and friends sat down to play string quartets they did not debate "extra-musicals" before lifting their bows and digging in. Whatever personal views anyone entertains about the place of music in human life, when bow meets string there is only music and the direct expression of feeling in sound.


When an actor/actress goes to the stage, his/her primary concern is the direction and the script. But this does not mean that his/her philosophy of acting or of theatre or play is not important. In fact, they are directly expressed through acting. So is his/her life's experience which constitutes his/her understanding of human emotions and interactions. The way and style in which Mozart/Haydn play string quartets with their friends is the philosophy (a focus on formal beauty, balance, and moderation). Culture and philosophy are already built-in in the way musician approaches music, they are expressed through the music, whether the players are aware of them or not.

It's never about whether or not the musicians are consciously thinking about Hegel or imagining Beethoven's spirit watching them, of course not. But to appreciate music it is essential to make as many musically informed associations as possible, that's how music can be integrated into the broader human experience. I was told this story about a music lover who played a recording of Shostakovich's violin concerto to his father, who was not a Russian but suffered through similar dark times, and the old man immediately wept and understood the music as corresponding to very specific episodes of his past. Should we dismiss his extra-musical associations just pure imagination? And should the performer stay ignorant of what Stalinism is or of Shostakovich went through, just to keep "extra-musical" stuff out of the equation? (It doesn't mean that he/she need to think about Gulag every time he/she plays.)


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't even believe in religion. This is sad to watch. Absolute meltdown.


Sure you do - quasi-religion....cult-like devotion. Yes, your meltdown becomes more prominent with each posting....fun to watch. :devil:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Oh, this is priceless...What is Brahms Sym #3 "about"?? I'd love to hear a 6-year-old's assessment..
> 
> No, it should read: according to you - _The point is to assert self-aggrandizing superiority through supposed apprehension of imaginary "ideals" floating about in the "ether", that are extraneous and/or irrelevant to the composer's intentions.
> _
> And most people have caught on, as these threads show.
> No, these threads have shown clearly that you have personal faith-based beliefs, that you are trying to pass off as some sort of "truth" that can be scientifically or empirically supported. of course you fail, you are frustrated, so you keep repeating the same discredited points over and over, and they continue to fail, over and over.


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are unbelievably insecure


I feel like I'm kicking a cripple....a very insecure one at that.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So first you say I'm lying, and then you proceed to do exactly what I said you're doing...


Since you can't sell your flawed point, you start lying....well, at least you're consistent....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Sure you do - quasi-religion....cult-like devotion. Yes, your meltdown becomes more prominent with each posting....fun to watch. :devil:


----------



## Woodduck

I'm thinking I'd best ignore the last couple of pages here... 

In response to the title of this thread, I'm inclined to ask whether anyone IS fascinated by Toscanini. I mean, I'm sure some people are, and lots of people undoubtedly were 80 years ago, but is fascination with Toscanini really a thing in 2020? Famous people's bios have perennial interest, especially when they have colorful personalities and skeletons in their closets, but is there anything especially fascinating for us now about Toscanini's music-making? Does it stand out today as it seems to have done back then? Is here still a mystique about him that many people now find appealing? I'm pretty much out of the music scene now, so I really don't know.

Personally, I don't feel a need for Toscanini. If I want just one recording of something, I feel confident that I can find a performance as satisfying as his in more up-to-date sound. I wonder if there are any recordings of his I haven't heard that I would find indispensable, such as De Sabata's _Tosca,_ Furtwangler's Bruckner and Wagner, Knappertsbusch's _Parsifal,_ Szigeti's Bach _Chaconne,_ Friedmann's Chopin... There are performances that achieve something uncanny, something sui generis, something that enlarges my view of the music. I can believe that Toscanini achieved that for some people in his own day, but can he do that for me now?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The question was crystal clear.


So is the answer...you are wrong, you cannot support your premise.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are the one clinging to musical philosophy like it's a religion, not me.


ROFL!! too funny...


> Toscanini had his subjective way, and Furtwängler had his. Neither was objectively "correct."


So you are backtracking on some 1700 pages of postings?? OK, concession noted....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The only thing irrefutable is how unbelievably insecure you must be to get so personal over a musical disagreement


LOL!! <<It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business>>
Michael Corleone in "The Godfather"


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> LOL, like you haven't dissed Furtwängler and touted Toscanini? Grow up, man


Drip...Drip....Drip...the meltdown accelerates...


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this thoughtful clarification. I thought the discussion is more about the appreciation of performances than performances themselves.


Right, would that it were!!


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this thoughtful clarification. I thought the discussion is more about the appreciation of performances than performances themselves.
> 
> I don't see how a gourmand can separate the "eating" from the recipe and culinary philosophy. It's about "why is this pudding so much more delicious than the other one" or "why this pudding tastes different than the other which makes it better". Nobody here is an advocate of bad puddings, I believe. If all you can say is "this pudding tastes different and is good", then you are not much of gourmand, are you?
> 
> Knowing one pudding is sweeter or has greater consistency than the other does not explain why it is good. The culture, the philosophy, the effort, and the tradition of preparing a pudding all matters for a gourmand. That's why a gourmand such as Dumas talks about Pliny and Aristides when he talks about the oyster, it's never just about the oyster. That's why you have to know a bit of Zen and the three schools of Tea ceremony to really appreciate drinking a bowl of matcha in a humble shack, it's never just about the matcha.
> 
> Appreciation, in my view, is never about either "analyze a work by itself" or "be content with getting a general impression", it has to do with figuring out what the work present in the giant web of symbols and meanings that give form to human experiences.
> 
> When an actor/actress goes to the stage, his/her primary concern is the direction and the script. But this does not mean that his/her philosophy of acting or of theatre or play is not important. In fact, they are directly expressed through acting. So is his/her life's experience which constitutes his/her understanding of human emotions and interactions. The way and style in which Mozart/Haydn play string quartets with their friends is the philosophy (a focus on formal beauty, balance, and moderation). Culture and philosophy are already built-in in the way musician approaches music, they are expressed through the music, whether the players are aware of them or not.
> 
> It's never about whether or not the musicians are consciously thinking about Hegel or imagining Beethoven's spirit watching them, of course not. But to appreciate music it is essential to make as many musically informed associations as possible, that's how music can be integrated into the broader human experience. I was told this story about a music lover who played a recording of Shostakovich's violin concerto to his father, who was not a Russian but suffered through similar dark times, and the old man immediately wept and understood the music as corresponding to very specific episodes of his past. Should we dismiss his extra-musical associations just pure imagination? And should the performer stay ignorant of what Stalinism is or of Shostakovich went through, just to keep "extra-musical" stuff out of the equation? (It doesn't mean that he/she need to think about Gulag every time he/she plays.)


I am in no way advocating looking at music, or any art, with no regard for its cultural context. I'm merely recognizing that the expressive forms of art rarely require that a performer bring to them any particular conscious world view. Composers don't ordinarily try to find musical symbols representing preconceived, non-musical ideas, unless they're setting words or writing program music with imitative qualities or an accompanying poem. That simply isn't where music comes from in the brain, regardless of a composer's politics, religious beliefs or love life, and if a piece of absolute music such as a symphony or string quartet can't get its "message" across without verbal assistance so that a performer can grasp it and put it across in turn, it probably isn't a very distinguished work.

I spent 35 years improvising music for ballet classes, and had to come up with a wide range of music on the spot. In all those years I sent a great quantity of personal feeling into the universe, but I had no time to indulge in any conscious reflection on what exactly I was expressing. I understand Aaron Copland's saying that a composer creates, not from an inward feeling (or, I will add, an inward thinking), but from an inward _singing._ The deepest meanings of art are the intangible things that words can't express, and that escape even our common emotional categories. The translation of "human experience" into musical shapes is real, but it takes place for composer and performer alike primarily on a subconscious level, and that is probably for the best, lest the rational mind constrict its meaning and make it something less than it can be.


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> In response to the title of this thread, I'm inclined to ask whether anyone IS fascinated by Toscanini. I mean, I'm sure some people are, and lots of people undoubtedly were 80 years ago, but is fascination with Toscanini really a thing in 2020?


I think so - his approach to conducting is still, far and away the prevalent influence in that art..._literalism _is by far the dominant influence at present.and it has been further enhanced by the entire HIP movement, which certainly appears to be an offshoot of this approach. It advocates a leaner, more transparent sound, shorter notes, bow strikes, not only applicable to the score, but to the actual sounds, instruments employed, that might have been produced contemporary with the composer's life. 
Conductors, like composers, go in and out of vogue...what is "hot" right now, may change radically in another 15-20 years....i think the great composers and musicians will persist thru it all....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So, I have been listening to Schubert 9ths lately, and I tried out this acclaimed version from Toscanini with the Philadelphia Orchestra. It is a good listen, very impressive. But I almost cannot think of a better example of what we are talking about when we say that Toscanini was in no way a true "objectivist." This performance is unmistakably Toscanini. To my taste, it does sound driven. It has a "drill sergeant" feel in every movement. I don't hear charm, or grace, or any sort of empathy. Most of all, I feel like I am listening to Toscanini, not Schubert. That is MY OPINION. Yours may differ, which is fine. But the main point here is that it is absolute rubbish to claim that Toscanini was an objective conduit of the score. He was just as subjectively himself as Furtwangler or anyone else, and we can all debate about which sounds best to us. Once you start arguing that your way is objectively "correct" and the others "wrong," you are essentially in my view revealing your insecurities. Just say what you like, and if others don't agree, tough for them.


I am not a big fan of this one. All I hear is downbeats throughout its entirety.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am not a big fan of this one. All I hear is downbeats throughout its entirety.


Me either. his NBC one is much better. really strong, powerful.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> I wonder if there are any recordings of his I haven't heard that I would find indispensable, such as De Sabata's _Tosca,_ Furtwangler's Bruckner and Wagner, Knappertsbusch's _Parsifal,_ Szigeti's Bach _Chaconne,_* Friedmann's Chopin..*. There are performances that achieve something uncanny, something sui generis, something that enlarges my view of the music. I can believe that Toscanini achieved that for some people in his own day, but can he do that for me now?


I love Friedman's Chopin!

My Top 10 all time classical recordings are:

1. Caruso, Opera arias
2. Beethoven, 9th Symphony - Furtwängler '42
3. Bach, Cello suites - Casals
4. Beethoven, Piano sonatas - Schnabel
5. Puccini, Tosca - Callas/De Sabata
6. Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde - Ferrier/Walter (live)
7. Beethoven, String quartets - Busch Quartet
8. Chopin/Mendelssohn, piano works - Friedman
9. Wagner, Die Walkure, Act 1 - Lehmann/Melchior/Walter
10. Rachmaninoff, Piano concerto No. 3 - Horowitz/Barbirolli

There are a few Toscanini recordings I consider indispensable:

1. Tchaikovsky, Piano concerto No. 1 w/Horowitz (1943)
2. Verdi, Otello
3. Verdi, Falstaff
4. Rossini, Overtures
5. Respighi, Tone poems


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I am in no way advocating looking at music, or any art, with no regard for its cultural context. I'm merely recognizing that the expressive forms of art rarely require that a performer bring to them any particular conscious world view. Composers don't ordinarily try to find musical symbols representing preconceived, non-musical ideas, unless they're setting words or writing program music with imitative qualities or an accompanying poem. That simply isn't where music comes from in the brain, regardless of a composer's politics, religious beliefs or love life, and if a piece of absolute music such as a symphony or string quartet can't get its "message" across without verbal assistance so that a performer can grasp it and put it across in turn, it probably isn't a very distinguished work.
> 
> I spent 35 years improvising music for ballet classes, and had to come up with a wide range of music on the spot. In all those years I sent a great quantity of personal feeling into the universe, but I had no time to indulge in any conscious reflection on what exactly I was expressing. I understand Aaron Copland's saying that a composer creates, not from an inward feeling (or, I will add, and inward thinking), but from an inward singing. The deepest meanings of art are the intangible things that words can't express, and that escape even our common emotional categories. The translation of "human experience" into musical shapes is real, but it takes place for composer and performer alike primarily on a subconscious level, and that is probably for the best, lest the rational mind constrict its meaning and make it something less than it can be.


Thank you for sharing this insight. I share your view of the creative process and the importance of the subconsciousness or unconsciousness. I completely agree with what you have put wonderfully, "The deepest meanings of art are the intangible things that words can't express, and that escape even our common emotional categories" and I love to embrace that mystery and ambiguity.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I love Friedman's Chopin!
> 
> My Top 10 all time classical recordings are:
> 
> 1. Caruso, Opera arias
> 2. Beethoven, 9th Symphony - Furtwängler '42
> 3. Bach, Cello suites - Casals
> 4. Beethoven, Piano sonatas - Schnabel
> 5. Puccini, Tosca - Callas/De Sabata
> 6. Mahler, Das Lied von der Erde - Ferrier/Walter (live)
> 7. Beethoven, String quartets - Busch Quartet
> 8. Chopin/Mendelssohn, piano works - Friedman
> 9. Wagner, Die Walkure, Act 1 - Lehmann/Melchior/Walter
> 10. Rachmaninoff, Piano concerto No. 3 - Horowitz/Barbirolli
> 
> There are a few Toscanini recordings I consider indispensable:
> 
> 1. Tchaikovsky, Piano concerto No. 1 w/Horowitz (1943)
> 2. Verdi, Otello
> 3. Verdi, Falstaff
> 4. Rossini, Overtures
> 5. Respighi, Tone poems


I am rather curious about your Top 10 STEREO recordings.


----------



## Woodduck

Heck148 said:


> I think so - his approach to conducting is still, far and away the prevalent influence in that art..._literalism _is by far the dominant influence at present.and it has been further enhanced by the entire HIP movement, which certainly appears to be an offshoot of this approach. It advocates a leaner, more transparent sound, shorter notes, bow strikes, not only applicable to the score, but to the actual sounds, instruments employed, that might have been produced contemporary with the composer's life.
> Conductors, like composers, go in and out of vogue...what is "hot" right now, may change radically in another 15-20 years....i think the great composers and musicians will persist thru it all....


This seems questionable to me. I think the HIP phenomenon was historically inevitable, with or without Toscanini or any other conductor, and the style of execution we typically hear is based largely on scholarship and on instrument construction and the playing techniques natural to it (e.g. the Baroque bow). There was a natural desire, too, to make old music sound "different"; Bach as played in the 1940s was articulated much as Beethoven or Brahms were, and the playing of Baroque music with the transparency we now take for granted has evolved over decades. The improvisatory aspect of the Baroque is another dimension, and it too has evolved in wonderfully adventurous ways. I don't see any of this having anything to do with literalism, since the Baroque performer was expected to be anything but literal.

As for Toscanini's influence on conducting in general, it's true that we're no longer treated to the freedom with which a Furtwangler, a Mengelberg, a Mahler or a Wagner (or, if we're to take his word for it, Beethoven himself) treated tempo. But the interest in historic practice has begun to penetrate the Romantic repertoire, and it may be only a matter of time.

None of this addresses the question of a "fascination" with Toscanini. If straightforward, "literal" performance has indeed been dominant from his day to ours, that seems the best reason why Toscanini would NOT be particularly fascinating now.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> I am in no way advocating looking at music, or any art, with no regard for its cultural context. I'm merely recognizing that the expressive forms of art rarely require that a performer bring to them any particular conscious world view. Composers don't ordinarily try to find musical symbols representing preconceived, non-musical ideas, unless they're setting words or writing program music with imitative qualities or an accompanying poem. That simply isn't where music comes from in the brain, regardless of a composer's politics, religious beliefs or love life, and if a piece of absolute music such as a symphony or string quartet can't get its "message" across without verbal assistance so that a performer can grasp it and put it across in turn, it probably isn't a very distinguished work.
> 
> I spent 35 years improvising music for ballet classes, and had to come up with a wide range of music on the spot. In all those years I sent a great quantity of personal feeling into the universe, but I had no time to indulge in any conscious reflection on what exactly I was expressing. I understand Aaron Copland's saying that a composer creates, not from an inward feeling (or, I will add, an inward thinking), but from an inward _singing._ The deepest meanings of art are the intangible things that words can't express, and that escape even our common emotional categories. The translation of "human experience" into musical shapes is real, but it takes place for composer and performer alike primarily on a subconscious level, and that is probably for the best, lest the rational mind constrict its meaning and make it something less than it can be.


Thanks for a fascinating post, Woodduck! Very interesting read for a person like me who has no musical background and has no experience with the process of composing.

I must say, it's also fascinating when you wake up (time difference) and realise the thread has expanded about three pages meanwhile .


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am rather curious about your Top 10 STEREO recordings.


I'll have to think about. Some that come to mind:

Bach, Goldberg variations - Gould '81

Monteverdi, Vespers of 1610 - Gardiner '89

Mahler, Symphony No. 6 - Barbirolli

R. Strauss, Four last songs - Schwarzkopf/Szell

Allegri, Miserere/Palestrina, Missa Papae Marcelli - Tallis Scholars '80

Copland, Orchestral works - Bernstein (Sony)

Haydn, Piano trios - Beaux Arts

R. Strauss, Tod und Verklarung - Karajan '71

Bach, Mass in B minor - Klemperer

Elgar, Cello concerto - Du Pre/Barbirolli

Puccini, La boheme - De Los Angeles/Bjorling/Beecham

Sibelius, Symphony No. 5 - Bernstein (Sony)

Elgar/Vaughan Williams, String music - Barbirolli

Tchaikovsky, 1812 Overture - Dorati (Mercury)


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll have to think about. Some that come to mind:
> 
> Bach, Goldberg variations - Gould '81
> 
> Monteverdi, Vespers of 1610 - Gardiner '89
> 
> Mahler, Symphony No. 6 - Barbirolli
> 
> R. Strauss, Four last songs - Schwarzkopf/Szell
> 
> Allegri, Miserere/Palestrina, Missa Papae Marcelli - Tallis Scholars '80
> 
> Copland, Orchestral works - Bernstein (Sony)
> 
> Haydn, Piano trios - Beaux Arts
> 
> R. Strauss, Tod und Verklarung - Karajan '71
> 
> Bach, Mass in B minor - Klemperer
> 
> Elgar, Cello concerto - Du Pre/Barbirolli
> 
> Puccini, La boheme - De Los Angeles/Bjorling/Beecham
> 
> Sibelius, Symphony No. 5 - Bernstein (Sony)
> 
> Elgar/Vaughan Williams, String music - Barbirolli
> 
> Tchaikovsky, 1812 Overture - Dorati (Mercury)


That La Boheme is quite definitely a mono recording  . But it's so good that I don't see a problem with considering it among favourite stereo recordings.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just got home, opened my 1994 Penguin Guide, and it says almost exactly verbatim what I recalled. Maybe you should take a timeout at this point. Quit while you're ahead. :lol:
> 
> "and Toscanini, for all his flowing lines fails to allow the full repose needed."
> 
> .


Of course, some of us are mature enough to make up our own opinions!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Of course, some of us are mature enough to make up our own opinions!


Yeah, and some of us are mature enough not to wake up in the morning, come onto the forum, and offer as our first post of the day an unprovoked insult to another member.

You'd be well-advised to refrain from lecturing people here about getting personal, while calling them "my friend" and tacking on little smiley faces. The hypocrisy is nauseating.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I have learned some things from this thread, and more from the parallel one about Furtwangler, both about how people apprehend music, and also about people more generally. However, I am not sure I've learned much new from the past 50 pages or so of posts on the combined threads.

By the way, I'm not going to indicate what I think I have learned, as that would at best be ignored, and at worst would be tinder for some more flaming.

Bold attempt, by the way, Mr Woodduck at trying to pull the discussion into more of a focus on what is actually being asserted by the different camps, but there does seem a reluctance to engage in that way. It's seems that there is more of a desire simply to insult.


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> .......I think the HIP phenomenon was historically inevitable, with or without Toscanini or any other conductor, and the style of execution we typically hear is based largely on scholarship and on instrument construction and the playing techniques natural to it (e.g. the Baroque bow). There was a natural desire, too, to make old music sound "different"; Bach as played in the 1940s was articulated much as Beethoven or Brahms were, and the playing of Baroque music with the transparency we now take for granted has evolved over decades.


I hear what you're saying, but the literalist movement was basically concerned with an "authenticity" - a "let's go back to the score itself" approach, which was a huge change from the ultra-Romantic approach...I think the HIP movement is much closer to the literalist approach than the romantic one, in its striving for authenticity....in fact, some HIP performances sound absolutely sterile, stripped of nearly all expressive content.. I'm not saying that Toscanini's approach inevitably led to the HIP movement - but the goals do seem to be somewhat similar, certainly far more than the romantic approach.
It is interesting that Reiner recorded the Brandenburg with a very small group, forecasting the HIP approach, back in 1949....at that time, Bach was still very much "Big Band" style....



> As for Toscanini's influence on conducting in general, it's true that we're no longer treated to the freedom with which a Furtwangler, a Mengelberg, a Mahler or a Wagner (or, if we're to take his word for it, Beethoven himself) treated tempo. But the interest in historic practice has begun to penetrate the Romantic repertoire, and it may be only a matter of time.....


Possibly, but at present, the Toscanini approach is still pretty dominant.....naturally there are variations.


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> I am in no way advocating looking at music, or any art, with no regard for its cultural context. I'm merely recognizing that the expressive forms of art rarely require that a performer bring to them any particular conscious world view. *Composers don't ordinarily try to find musical symbols representing preconceived, non-musical ideas, unless they're setting words or writing program music with imitative qualities or an accompanying poem.* That simply isn't where music comes from in the brain, regardless of a composer's politics, religious beliefs or love life, and if a piece of absolute music such as a symphony or string quartet can't get its "message" across without verbal assistance so that a performer can grasp it and put it across in turn, it probably isn't a very distinguished work.
> 
> I spent 35 years improvising music for ballet classes, and had to come up with a wide range of music on the spot. In all those years I sent a great quantity of personal feeling into the universe, but I had no time to indulge in any conscious reflection on what exactly I was expressing. I understand Aaron Copland's saying that a composer creates, not from an inward feeling (or, I will add, an inward thinking), but from an inward _singing._ *The deepest meanings of art are the intangible things that words can't express, and that escape even our common emotional categories. The translation of "human experience" into musical shapes is real, but it takes place for composer and performer alike primarily on a subconscious level, and that is probably for the best, lest the rational mind constrict its meaning and make it something less than it can be*.


Well said!!........


----------



## Heck148

One of the fascinating things about great conductors like Toscanini, Reiner, etc, is their ability to present fresh, exciting performances of concert "potboilers", works that are very well-known, over-played "warhorses" that all too often suffer from mediocre to lackluster performances. Somehow these conductors infuse an enthusiasm, an alertness in their musicians that make it sound like the world premiere performance!! the greatest piece ever written!!
For Reiner, his "Marche Slav" is awesome, powerful, inevitable, triumphant....not the ploddy, soggy trudge that happens all too frequently...further - his "Fest-Marsch from Tannhauser" is a real barn-burner!! Ripping tempo, real overdrive, very exciting - for a true _potboiler_ which is, shall we say, not the peak of the composer's oeuvre...

Toscanini excelled in this department as well - 
his "Finlandia" from '52 is magnificent, nobody else comes close, not even Barbirolli [which is a good one!!]...it is big, hard-edged, icy, powerful, expressive, right from the get-go, as the carnivorous NBCers intone the opening chords with raw intensity....
Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony is another Toscanini special - and this poor piece, like "Finlandia", gets beat up mercilessly by virtually every community orchestra in the land...dull, flaccid, pedestrian renditions are all too common.
Not with Toscanini - riveting, driving forward, tremendous intensity - it is "Allegro moderato", as marked, not _"Andante drag-ando"_ or _"Adagio soporifico"_....it's really virile, muscular, without all the excessive ritardandos and telegraphing of cadences.
It takes a special talent to inspire musicians to play with fresh ears, fresh hearts, pieces which they've heard, and played for years and years.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The gyst of it is that the score does not tell the whole story, and that *our personal reactions to the music are not random, unrelated phenomena*,but rather containing an element of truth in them. This connection is what a competent performer seeks as opposed to merely repeating the score markings without consciously thinking about the meaning behind the music, the reason we play it in the first place. *This is the "truth" of the music as I call it*, which is an abstract, undefinable concept, but which obviously exists to anyone who has experienced music on this level. If it didn't exist, a conductor like Furtwangler would never have attained wide appeal.


If this is the case, then, as I've suggested a few times, you must think sit coms or sporting matches or pornography contain "an element of truth in them" because, like our reactions to musical performances, our ractions to sit coms and sport and pornography are "not random unrelated phenomena". Moreover, these nonrandom subjective reactions are what a competent director or sports facilitator "seeks" as opposed to merely getting the actors to read the script/sportsmen to go through the bare minimal motions without conciously thinking about the "meaning behind" the script/motions, i.e. the reason we watch in the first place.

Which is fine if you do...

I actually have no problem in the idea that conductors (or directors, whatever) have our nonrandom human reactions in mind and seek to stimulate these via their craft. In this sense, a performance can reflect truth - the basis of this truth being our intersubjective reactions as human beings.

But, if I understand you correctly, you would disagree with the analogies presented here. And without any good reason. If this is indeed the case, then I strongly disagree that your notion of 'musical truth' is an innocuous as you are trying to pass off ("Selling", in Heck's terminology).

Time to put your cards on the table...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> If this is the case, then, as I've suggested a few times, you must think sit coms or sporting matches contain "an element of truth in them" because, like our reactions to musical performances, our ractions to sit coms and sport are "not random unrelated phenomena". Moreover, these nonrandom subjective reactions are what a competent television director or sports facilitator "seeks" as opposed to merely getting the actors to read the script/sportsmen to go through the bare minimal motions without conciously thinking about the "meaning behind" the script/motions, i.e. the reason we watch in the first place.
> 
> Which is fine if you do...
> 
> I actually have no problem in the idea that conductors (or tv directors, whatever) have our nonrandom human reactions in mind and seek to stimulate these via their craft. In this sense, a performance can reflect truth - the basis of this truth being our intersubjective reactions as human beings.


Of course, sports contain "an element of truth in them", not just one, but many. That's why world-class soccer teams and Bookmakers use extensive data analysis for pattern recognition/forecast and develop sophisticated strategies and training routines based on these analyses. These "truths" cannot be fully described, that's why statistical modelings are being used. A soccer player on the field will not be conscious of such "truth" but he/her performance is still subject to it.

It is a known fact that conductor such as Furtwangler is consciously seeking "inspiration" for a performance. He cannot stand a straightforward interpretation as remembered by members of BPO. How he "gets" it and how these "inspiration" works in a live concert (it may fail) is mysterious to us. If we know such secret, we wouldn't be sitting here bickering about two dead conductors ad nausea.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini excelled in this department as well -
> his "Finlandia" from '52 is magnificent, nobody else comes close, not even Barbirolli [which is a good one!!]...it is big, hard-edged, icy, powerful, expressive, right from the get-go, as the carnivorous NBCers intone the opening chords with raw intensity....


This is a great performance, fun, alert, and fiery (I wouldn't call this icy). The winds (especially the Basson) and brass are well done but the strings are weak (especially the double bass).

Now I am going to talk about "extramusical" stuff, that I am not convinced about the first theme, I don't hear the struggle of the oppressed Finns that is crucial to this work. This music is about fighting for national independence (and forming a national identity), the first section needs to be played more expressively to convey a sense of national history (as shared suffering). The articulation and the blocky downbeats do not create the desired sound and phrases. Both Lenny (very moving) and Neeme Jarvi did better jobs in my view.


----------



## Taggart

Please concentrate on the OP and not on personal arguments.

A number of off topic posts have been removed pending moderator discussion.


----------



## wkasimer

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ^ The trick is not minding that it "buzzes"


Or shutting the window so that the "buzzing" is completely inaudible.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Of course, sports contain "an element of truth in them", not just one, but many. That's why world-class soccer teams and Bookmakers use extensive data analysis for pattern recognition/forecast and develop sophisticated strategies and training routines based on these analyses. These "truths" cannot be fully described, that's why statistical modelings are being used. A soccer player on the field will not be conscious of such "truth" but he/her performance is still subject to it.


Well, the analogy is why do we watch soccer? That is where the element of "truth" comes in. There must be something appealing about the sport, and there are ways we can enhance the experience it to make it moreso.

Likewise, obviously there is an element of truth in why we still listen to Beethoven. A literalist cannot explain that. There is no book of instructions telling us to appreciate Beethoven. We are inspired by something, right? Calling that quasi-religious is a cheap red herring. It is simply the human experience, the same reason we do anything beyond the nuts and bolts of what we need to survive.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, the analogy is why do we watch soccer? That is where the element of "truth" comes in. There must be something appealing about the sport, and there are ways we can enhance the experience it to make it moreso.
> 
> Likewise, obviously there is an element of truth in why we still listen to Beethoven. A literalist cannot explain that. There is no book of instructions telling us to appreciate Beethoven. We are inspired by something, right? Calling that quasi-religious is a cheap red herring. It is simply the human experience, the same reason we do anything beyond the nuts and bolts of what we need to survive.


What exactly do you mean by the word "truth"? What does it mean in this context? In ordinary conversation it describes a proposition which identifies or corresponds to reality; a statement is true (it identifies a reality) or false (it doesn't). In this discussion it appears to mean something else; as applied to a musical performance it seems figurative or metaphorical, since nothing is being stated or argued. I find the use of the word more obfuscatory than clarifying, and I wonder if it isn't part of the reason people are saying that their views are being distorted or misrepresented.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> What exactly do you mean by the word "truth"? What does it mean in this context? In ordinary conversation it describes a proposition which identifies or corresponds to reality; a statement is true (it identifies a reality) or false (it doesn't). In this discussion it appears to mean something else; as applied to a musical performance it seems figurative or metaphorical, since nothing is being stated or argued. I find the use of the word more obfuscatory than clarifying, and I wonder if it isn't part of the reason people are saying that their views are being distorted or misrepresented.


Have you ever heard the phrase "something that rings true?"

The whole point of this discussion is to negate the idea that only what is clearly written in the score is "true" and anything else attached to the music is some random event. I negate that philosophy, and I don't think most people really believe it.

Now, we can debate about those things not written in the score, but that does not make them random and meaningless.

Again, why do we even listen to the music in the first place? Is there some concrete, tangible reason?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This is a great performance, fun, alert, and fiery (I wouldn't call this icy).


It's both, which why it is so good.



> I don't hear the struggle of the oppressed Finns that is crucial to this work. This music is about fighting for national independence (and forming a national identity), the first section needs to be played more expressively to convey a sense of national history (as shared suffering).


As I've said before, the listener is free to apply any sort of concept, ideal, program content to any or all music....anything that enhances the listener's enjoyment is favorable. Toscanini and his orchestra present the music powerfully, expressively....how the listener receives it is a personal reaction specific to him/her.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Have you ever heard the phrase "something that rings true?"
> 
> The whole point of this discussion is to negate the idea that only what is clearly written in the score is "true" and anything else attached to the music is some random event. I negate that philosophy, and I don't think most people really believe it.
> 
> Now, we can debate about those things not written in the score, but that does not make them random and meaningless.
> 
> Again, why do we even listen to the music in the first place? Is there some concrete, tangible reason?


Wasn't the point of this discussion to explain fascination with Toscanini  ?

This "truth" discussion was already extensively discussed in the Furtwängler thread and as no mutual agreement was reached, I'm not sure if there's point to start with the same argumentation again here.

I haven't followed the whole discussion but when did anyone say that the score "true"? How can art be true? This whole truth-discussion should, in my opinion, be stopped because no one seems to be able to define this "truth" or say why this or that is "true" and something else isn't. I don't believe there is any philosophical truth in music, but that doesn't mean I find everything which is not written in the score random and meaningless.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The practical application of my philosophy - which is what I think most people really adhere to - is that musical truth is open to subjective debate. There are no concrete answers to how the music should go. We are always searching, exploring, and debating.

When you say that the score represents clear, finite truth, and anything else deviates from that truth, you are limiting thought, limiting exploration, limiting _interpretation_. Most importantly, you are limiting the music itself. It really only artificially benefits the person claiming to know the score, because no one has a monopoly on correct interpretation.

Now, there is a third way of looking at it, which is to say there is no truth at all. This I believe is what RogerWaters is espousing. I don't think anyone really believes this either. No one thinks that you can just go on stage and play Beethoven in a completely random manner without any thought as to how the piece "should" go.


----------



## annaw

Woodduck said:


> What exactly do you mean by the word "truth"? What does it mean in this context? In ordinary conversation it describes a proposition which identifies or corresponds to reality; a statement is true (it identifies a reality) or false (it doesn't). In this discussion it appears to mean something else; as applied to a musical performance it seems figurative or metaphorical, since nothing is being stated or argued. I find the use of the word more obfuscatory than clarifying, and I wonder if it isn't part of the reason people are saying that their views are being distorted or misrepresented.


(I have a feeling that the main discussion is about existence of some higher "truth", not the metaphorical one. But I'm really not sure anymore...)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> Wasn't the point of this discussion to explain fascination with Toscanini  ?
> 
> This "truth" discussion was already extensively discussed in the Furtwängler thread and as no mutual agreement was reached, I'm not sure if there's point to start with the same argumentation again here.
> 
> I haven't followed the whole discussion but when did anyone say that the score "true"? How can art be true? This whole truth-discussion should, in my opinion, be stopped because no one seems to be able to define this "truth" or say why this or that is "true" and something else isn't. I don't believe there is any philosophical truth in music, but that doesn't mean I find everything which is not written in the score random and meaningless.


You can't discuss Toscanini without talking about his literalist philosophy and legacy. Many say it amounts to more of his legacy than his actual recording legacy.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The practical application of my philosophy - which is what I think most people really adhere to - is that musical truth is open to subjective debate. There are no concrete answers to how the music should go. We are always searching, exploring, and debating.
> 
> *When you say that the score represents clear, finite truth, and anything else deviates from that truth*, you are limiting thought, limiting exploration, limiting _interpretation_. Most importantly, you are limiting the music itself. It really only artificially benefits the person claiming to know the score, because no one has a monopoly on correct interpretation.
> 
> Now, there is a third way of looking at it, which is to say there is no truth at all. This I believe is what RogerWaters is espousing. I don't think anyone really believes this either. No one thinks that you can just go on stage and play Beethoven in a completely random manner without any thought as to how the piece "should" go.


No point arguing about truth, if we all don't understand it the same way. And I don't think we do.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> As I've said before, the listener is free to apply any sort of concept, ideal, program content to any or all music....anything that enhances the listener's enjoyment is favorable. Toscanini and his orchestra present the music powerfully, expressively....how the listener receives it is a personal reaction specific to him/her.


And this is proven categorically false when an interpreter DOES take it upon himself to connect with the listener by communicating the meaning of the music and SUCCEEDS in doing so. This proves the music does not just simply speak for itself.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> No point arguing about truth, if we all don't understand it the same way. And I don't think we do.


You say there is no point, and yet we do it anyway. Why are these threads so endless? Because we all believe there is a real truth but we have our differing opinions on what that truth is. The only loser is the one claiming that truth is self-evident. That is demonstratably false. It is complex and impossible to fully be realized. And we search for it constantly.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

I don't think BH's position is outlandish and obfuscating at all. 

I find some of Klemperer's interpretations more "true to the spirit" of the music than Toscanini and Furtwangler, despite the fact it is played slow. Whether or not that's "purely subjective", "intersubjective", psychological, or subject to certain universality is a matter of perspective. I am pretty sure Klemperer treated his interpretation as "true to the spirit" too, so did Toscanini and Furtwangler.

Furtwangler was against the HIP practices because he thought that the size of the orchestra and period instruments were limitations in Bach's time rather than essential features. Some of his arguments are based on acoustics of the concert hall as well. Bach couldn't have wanted that in his mind. This kind of educated extrapolation is what interpretation is about, you can't interpret without extrapolating.

I certainly don't see why there is a big fuss about holding BH to rigorous philosophical standard. He is expressing a rather ordinary view on performances and his choice of words was mostly pragmatic.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

Because the literalist position does not allow for freedom of intepretation. The point of literalism is *literally* to say that "my way is right and your way is wrong." There is no room for interpretation.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The practical application of my philosophy - which is what I think most people really adhere to - is that musical truth is open to subjective debate. There are no concrete answers to how the music should go. We are always searching, exploring, and debating.


If no one can say definitively how music should be performed, and if different - sometimes very different - interpretations of a work can be valid and satisfying, then the concept of "truth" as applied to musical performance is clearly not synonymous with "correctness." A given interpretation might strike us as wrong-headed or outlandish; Maximillian Cobra's ridiculously slow rendition of Beethoven's 9th comes to mind. But short of that sort of perversity, any number of interpretations may lie within the boundaries suggested by a musical score. An interpretation such as Cobra's may be obviously "false," but no one's - not Toscanini's, not Furtwangler's, not any individual conductor's - is the "true" interpretation of the work. If there is a "truth" to be discovered about a musical work, it would seem to me to be simply an understanding of what are the boundaries of reasonable interpretation.



> When you say that the score represents clear, finite truth, and anything else deviates from that truth, you are limiting thought, limiting exploration, limiting _interpretation_. Most importantly, you are limiting the music itself. It really only artificially benefits the person claiming to know the score, because no one has a monopoly on correct interpretation.


The fact that no one has a monopoly on correct interpretation seems to me the best reason to limit the application of the word "truth" to that on which we can (mostly) all agree. What is true is that Beethoven wrote down certain notes, tempo markings, accents, slurs, etc., and not others, and that there are traditions of performance which may give us insights into how to interpret these markings. In answering the question, "What is the truth of Beethoven's 5th," we all first consult the score. Virtually everything beyond that is more or less debatable, and anyone claiming to know the "truth" about what Beethoven imagined and wanted the work to sound like should be met with skepticism.



> Now, there is a third way of looking at it, which is to say there is no truth at all. This I believe is what RogerWaters is espousing. I don't think anyone really believes this either. No one thinks that you can just go on stage and play Beethoven in a completely random manner without any thought as to how the piece "should" go.


I doubt that RogerWaters or anyone else is advocating randomness.

I don't think anyone here - or possibly anywhere - believes that there is nothing to music beyond the notes on the page. Anyone who thinks that would have to be content to have music performed by robots or computers. Everyone knows that musical scores require interpretation; there is virtually no such thing as an absolutely literal rendering of a score by human beings, and virtually no human being would want to hear one. The real question is how far beyond the score a performer can go and remain within those boundaries of reasonable interpretation. So long as we're within them, it's every man for himself, and no one can claim to have the "truth."


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I find some of Klemperer's interpretations more "*true to the spirit*" of the music than Toscanini and Furtwangler


Who determined what 'the spirit' is?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> short of that sort of perversity, any number of interpretations may lie within the boundaries suggested by a musical score. An interpretation such as Cobra's may be obviously "false," but no one's - not Toscanini's, not Furtwangler's, not any individual conductor's - is the "true" interpretation of the work. If there is a "truth" to be discovered about a musical work, it would seem to me to be simply an understanding of what are the boundaries of reasonable interpretation.


I can't remember if it was in this thread, Furtwangler or even Bach, but I said much the same thing a while back, and so did Eclectic Al, I think.

That's three votes for the idea.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Who determined what 'the spirit' is?


NO ONE does. That's the whole point!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> If no one can say definitively how music should be performed, and if different - sometimes very different - interpretations of a work can be valid and satisfying, then the concept of "truth" as applied to musical performance is clearly not synonymous with "correctness."
> 
> So long as we're within them, it's every man for himself, and no one can claim to have the "truth."


You're just not getting what I'm saying. I have said dozens upon dozens of times that truth is INDEFINABLE. It exists as an abstract concept, but it DOES exist insofar as (A) we are all seeking to grasp it, and (B) to varying degrees we observe it in our opinions and reactions.

The reason this discussion is so endless is because so many keep going down the rabbit hole of trying to objectively define what the truth is or who has the authority to define it. No one does.

But in the absence of truth, even in the abstract, we are left in a vaccuum of meaningless preferences. I do not think that is valid, anymore than saying that morals, ethics, and systems of justice are based on random preference.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Who determined what 'the spirit' is?


You are suggesting that we have to "objectify" the concept in order to discuss it, I beg to differ.

I belong to the camp that argues that "spirit" has a materialist (information-theoretical) explanation but one that is difficult to fully describe, like many other things.

I would always trust an old Russian to tell me which Tchaikovsky's performance has the "Russian spirit" even if he/she cannot clarify what it means. This level of indeterminacy is certainly tolerable to me, and I would not dismiss such opinion as "nonsensical" even if there is a margin of error. I doubt that the answer would be Karajan over Mravinsky.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> NO ONE does. That's the whole point!


Then how do you know if you're close to it?


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You are suggesting that we have to "objectify" the concept in order to discuss it, I beg to differ.
> 
> I belong to the camp that argues that "spirit" has a materialist (information-theoretical) explanation but one that is difficult to fully describe, like many other things.
> 
> I would always trust an old Russian to tell me which Tchaikovsky's performance has the "Russian spirit" even if he/she cannot clarify what it means. This level of indeterminacy is certainly tolerable to me, and I would not dismiss such opinion as "nonsensical" even if there is a margin of error. I doubt that the answer would be Karajan over Mravinsky.


Try not to over interpret on the basis of my simple question. Thanks.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Then how do you know if you're close to it?


You don't!

How do we know murder is wrong?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You are suggesting that we have to "objectify" the concept in order to discuss it, I beg to differ.
> 
> I belong to the camp that argues that "spirit" has a materialist (information-theoretical) explanation but one that is difficult to fully describe, like many other things.
> 
> I would always trust an old Russian to tell me which Tchaikovsky's performance has the "Russian spirit" even if he/she cannot clarify what it means. This level of indeterminacy is certainly tolerable to me, and I would not dismiss such opinion as "nonsensical" even if there is a margin of error. I doubt that the answer would be Karajan over Mravinsky.


This isn't rocket science, no matter how much some want to use that red herring argument.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You don't!


But UniversalTuringMachine said, "I find some of Klemperer's interpretations more "*true to the spirit*" of the music than Toscanini and Furtwangler".

Are you his keeper that you can explain for him?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> But UniversalTuringMachine said, "I find some of Klemperer's interpretations more "*true to the spirit*" of the music than Toscanini and Furtwangler".
> 
> Are you his keeper that you can explain for him?


It is an OPINION not a FACT


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is an OPINION not a FACT


So? It still requires explanation if the opinion is to have any kind of credibility.

(And please stop shouting.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> So? It still requires explanation if the opinion is to have any kind of credibility.
> 
> (And please stop shouting.)


(Sorry, I was doing that for stress of certain words, just as I would in conversation)

An opinion does not require explanation.

This reminds me of an anecdote from a Furtwangler rehearsal where he told the orchestra, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, this passage, it needs to be more.....well, you know....do it again!"


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> (Sorry, I was doing that for stress of certain words, just as I would in conversation)
> 
> An opinion does not require explanation.
> 
> This reminds me of an anecdote from a Furtwangler rehearsal where he told the orchestra, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, this passage, it needs to be more.....well, you know....do it again!"


Then the opinion remains opaque to me, and lacks credibility.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> But UniversalTuringMachine said, "I find some of Klemperer's interpretations more "*true to the spirit*" of the music than Toscanini and Furtwangler".
> 
> Are you his keeper that you can explain for him?


I will make it simple for you. Some performances make more sense than the other. Some performances make you think that this must be how Beethoven hear it, or this must be how Russians would play it.

Maria Callas once said after hearing Furtwangeler that "Furtwangler is Beethoven !". Of course, all of these might be pure imaginations but that's not the point.

There are certain structures of meanings and cognitive features that are shared among people that make them decoding musical information in a similar way and interpret things as closer to some notion of shared "truth". These features are not shared by all and are constantly in flux. So I don't like to use the term "truth" in this context.

And this really is harder than Rocket-Science if we want to get to the bottom of it, which is why I think for pragmatic purposes, it is perfectly fine to talk about these loosely without worrying about these philosophical problems (and without branding other people's idea as pure nonsense).

It's a matter of trust. I trust a Southerner when he/she talks about the Southern spirit, even if he/she cannot explain it. I also trust a devout Christian when he/she talks about how the Holy Spirit visits him (it's really a matter of interpretation, not crazy imagination) even if I am a materialist.

Of course, the burden of explanation is on those who make the claim. But not everything is easy to explain, or can be satisfactorily explained to a scientific degree of rigor on a CM forum. As long as I can understand in general what BH is expressing and get information out of it, it's fine for me. It's not that hard.

If it's something I don't understand, like RogerWater's enthusiastic fixation on epistemology, then I don't have to be triggered by it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> Then the opinion remains opaque to me, and lacks credibility.


Why does it require clarity to have credibility? Even more...what exactly is credibility? You're going into the realm of some people's opinions having validity over others. In matters of music I don't buy that.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And this is proven categorically false


No, it proves no such thing.



> when an interpreter DOES take it upon himself to connect with the listener by communicating the meaning of the music


Baloney, all conjecture...it wrongly presupposes an extra-musical "meaning", "truth" to all music, which is solely the fantasy of your own quasi-religious faith-based personal opinion. You invalidly claim that there is but one"truth"...any other interpetation is therefore, "untruthful", and wrong.
You cannot provide any evidence of such an existence, it is your opinion only (we are not referring to obvious program music)....your premise is false.... 0 for 1
Your contention is that only certain divinely anointed mortals, like WF, are capable of apprehending said "truth", and all other conductors are incapable of this divine revelation....since this faulty premise is based upon the invalid first one, it too collapses....0 for 2.
Then, you go further, claiming that any conductor who cannot apprehend this imaginary "truth" is not only wrong, but must be a mindless <<stick-beating robot>>, a "trained monkey" capable only of pounding out metronomic beats. This is so absurd that it barely merits recognition....0 for 3....
Run it up to 2000 postings if you want...you're still 0 for 3.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Conductors of the past were engaging in silly imaginary theories like Schenkerian analysis, but then Toscanini came along and said "Allegro con brio means allegro con brio," and our heads exploded. What was so uniquely brilliant about Toscanini's theories on music? I would love to learn more.


Incidentally, to anyone claiming these philosophical discussions are off topic (cough, cough)...the above is from my OP.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> No, it proves no such thing.
> 
> Baloney, all conjecture...it wrongly presupposes an extra-musical "meaning", "truth" to all music, which is solely the object of your own quasi-religious faith-based personal opinion. *You invalidly claim that there is but one"truth"...any other interpetation is therefore, "untruthful", and wrong.*
> You cannot provide any evidence of such an existence, it is your opinion only (we are not referring to obvious program music)....your premise is false.... 0 for 1
> *Your contention is that only certain divinely anointed mortals, like WF, are capable of apprehending said "truth", and all other conductors are incapable of this divine revelation*....since this faulty premise is based upon the invalid first one, it too collapses....0 for 2.
> Then, you go further, claiming that any conductor who cannot apprehend this imaginary "truth" is not only wrong, but must be a mindless <<stick-beating robot>>, a "trained monkey" capable only of pounding out metronomic beats. This is so absurd that it barely merits recognition....0 for 3....
> Run it up to 2000 postings if you want...you're still 0 for 3.


Why do you insist on lying and making statements I never said?


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're just not getting what I'm saying. I have said dozens upon dozens of times that truth is INDEFINABLE. It exists as an abstract concept, but it DOES exist insofar as (A) we are all seeking to grasp it, and (B) to varying degrees we observe it in our opinions and reactions.


When I listen to a piece of music, I do not, at least consciously, seek for some inherent truth. What I evaluate is whether I like the interpretation or not, whether it matches with my own view of the piece and does it show something new I could add to my understanding of the piece. There can be many such understandings. Karajan's and Blomstedt's (earlier) interpretations of Beethoven's 7th are very different, both are great, but I don't claim neither to be nearer to the truth. They reveal different aspects of the work and Beethoven's score.



> The reason this discussion is so endless is because so many keep going down the rabbit hole of trying to objectively define what the truth is or who has the authority to define it. No one does.


What is truth but something objective? I still don't think we should talk about absolute truth in musical sense.



> But in the absence of truth, even in the abstract, we are left in a vaccuum of meaningless preferences. I do not think that is valid, anymore than saying that morals, ethics, and systems of justice are based on random preference.


I think you are mixing up this "musical truth" and moral truth. The fact that a person believes that there isn't some abstract truth in music, doesn't mean he or she cannot believe that moral, religious, philosophical or metaphysical truth exists. I don't think no one here is arguing against the existence of truth in general sense (or is someone?) but just that in music.


----------



## Heck148

One of the fascinations of Toscanini is his ability to delve into the score, find its treasures, its strokes of genius, the nitty-gritty of the music as it was written....and not be preoccupied, distracted, by all sorts of non-musical baggage, presumptuous philosophical overlays, and metaphysical trappings that obscure the view/sound of the music itself.
Makes one think of the paintings of past masters, that were covered with the thick overlay of varnish, which darkened, obscured the color and detail so severely...remove the extraneous varnish and....VOILA!! looks like a new masterpiece. Bravo Toscanini, for letting us hear what the composer wrote.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why do you in...


.....0 for 3......


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why does it require clarity to have credibility? Even more...what exactly is credibility? You're going into the realm of some people's opinions having validity over others. In matters of music I don't buy that.


Because if I don't understand it, it's not much use to me, is it? And if it's no use to me, I need not bother with it.

If someone wants a meaningful trade in opinions, that is.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Toscanini was also trying to be "true to the spirit" of the work. I don't think any conductor would think otherwise. How is this difficult to understand? Nobody can put "the spirit of the work" on paper, or as a formula.

People have different ideas of what's the true "the spirit of the work", that's why there are different interpretations. How is this difficult to understand?

When I play Chopin for friends, I have to read Chopin's biography and Liszt's essay on him to understand "the spirit of the work" in order to interpret it well. There are pieces that I feel great affinity to, as if I can understand what Chopin was thinking, and the reasoning behind each musical element, then of course I am going to give a more convincing performance with more self-assurance on handling the details of the score. How is this difficult to understand?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> When I listen to a piece of music, I do not, at least consciously, seek for some inherent truth. What I evaluate is *whether I like the interpretation or not, whether it matches with my own view of the piece and does it show something new I could add to my understanding of the piece*. There can be many such understandings. Karajan's and Blomstedt's (earlier) interpretations of Beethoven's 7th are very different, *both are great*, but I don't claim neither to be nearer to the truth. They reveal different aspects of the work and Beethoven's score.


What I highlighted in bold represents truth. I am not saying you are searching for metaphysical truth. I am saying your reactions, in bold, represent truth.



annaw said:


> What is truth but something objective? I still don't think we should talk about absolute truth in musical sense.


Truth in this context is an abstract ideal. I made an analogy recently to how many religions can be variations on the same truth, all different, and all potentially revealing in different ways.



annaw said:


> I think you are mixing up this "musical truth" and moral truth. The fact that a person believes that there isn't some abstract truth in music, doesn't mean he or she cannot believe that moral, religious, philosophical or metaphysical truth exists. I don't think no one here is arguing against the existence of truth in general sense (or is someone?) but just that in music.


I am using morals as an analogy to where truth can exist without being tangible. We all think it is true murder is wrong - do we? - but we cannot prove it objectively. And beyond murder there are a myriad of questions upon which we can disagree, but in the abstract there exists some ideal of a true answer.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> One of the fascinations of Toscanini is his ability to delve into the score, find its treasures, its strokes of genius, the nitty-gritty of the music as it was written....and not be preoccupied, distracted, by all sorts of non-musical baggage, presumptuous philosophical overlays, and metaphysical trappings that obscure the view/sound of the music itself.
> Makes one think of the paintings of past masters, that were covered with the thick overlay of varnish, which darkened, obscured the color and detail so severely...remove the extraneous varnish and....VOILA!! looks like a new masterpiece. Bravo Toscanini, for letting us hear what the composer wrote.


Why do you insist on lying and making statements I never said? I would like an answer to this.

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> You invalidly claim that there is but one"truth"...any other interpetation is therefore, "untruthful", and wrong.





Heck148 said:


> Your contention is that only certain divinely anointed mortals, like WF, are capable of apprehending said "truth", and all other conductors are incapable of this divine revelation.


If you are going to put words in my mouth, you should back it up. Quote me where I said the above.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Why do you insist


My posting wasn't addressed to you.
Quit whining.....0 for 3


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If you are going to put wor


Quit whining....0 for 3


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> You invalidly claim that there is but one"truth"...any other interpetation is therefore, "untruthful", and wrong.
> Your contention is that only certain divinely anointed mortals, like WF, are capable of apprehending said "truth", and all other conductors are incapable of this divine revelation





Brahmsianhorn said:


> The practical application of my philosophy - which is what I think most people really adhere to - is that musical truth is open to subjective debate. There are no concrete answers to how the music should go. We are always searching, exploring, and debating.


Heck, I am quoting myself from just earlier today saying the exact opposite of what you claimed I said.

I demand an answer as to why you are making up statements that I never said and do not agree with.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What I highlighted in bold represents truth. I am not saying you are searching for metaphysical truth. I am saying your reactions, in bold, represent truth.
> 
> Truth in this context is an abstract ideal. I made an analogy recently to how many religions can be variations on the same truth, all different, and all potentially revealing in different ways.
> 
> I am using morals as an analogy to where truth can exist without being tangible. We all think it is true murder is wrong - do we? - but we cannot prove it objectively. And beyond murder there are a myriad of questions upon which we can disagree, but in the abstract there exists some ideal of a true answer.


I don't think an analogy between moral truths and this "musical truth" works but I'm afraid such discussion would get us even further away from Toscanini.

But excuse me now, I'm off to listen to some Schoenberg or Verdi's _Rigoletto_ ...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Quit whining....0 for 3


Demanding decency and honest decorum is whining??? Not in my world. I don't act like a dumb bully who simply wants to get his way.

Now for the last time, please explain to me why you insist on lying and claiming I said things I never said and do not even believe? In fact I have said the exact opposite!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

annaw said:


> I don't think an analogy between moral truths and this "musical truth" works but I'm afraid such discussion would get us even further away from Toscanini.
> 
> But excuse me now, I'm off to listen to some Schoenberg or Verdi's _Rigoletto_ ...


To the extent that you insist the word "truth" necessarily connotes something objective, it certainly does work as an analogy.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, I am quoting myself from just earlier


Your insistence that there must be a "musical truth" is invalid.
You're still 0 for 3. And quit whining.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Your insistence that there must be a "musical truth" is invalid.
> You're still 0 for 3. And quit whining.


And how did I describe this truth, as something materially objective or something abstract and subjective that no one can claim to possess for themselves?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Demanding decency and hones


Quit whining, will you??
You're 0 for 3.....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And how did I..... ?


Your faulty premises have been refuted...this thread is supposed to be about Toscanini, not you whining about your failed arguments. Move along....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Quit whining, will you??
> You're 0 for 3.....


Whining about what?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Your faulty premises have been refuted...this thread is supposed to be about Toscanini, not you whining about your failed arguments. Move along....


1) I started this thread to discuss Toscanini's failed philosophy

2) You still have not answered why you felt it necessary to lie about what I said.

Why do you claim I said Furtwangler represents objective truth when in fact I have said that truth is subject to interpretation?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> 1) I started this ....?


You whiffed on 3 pitches. Move along....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> You whiffed on 3 pitches. Move along....


Why do you claim I said Furtwangler represents objective truth when in fact I have said that truth is subject to interpretation?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The difference between you and me Heck is that I am not like a caveman trying to win. I am trying to get things right. I don't lie and distort what people say in order to "win."

You cannot answer why you lied, and I'll say it: You cannot even comprehend what I am saying, but you desperately want to be seen as the victor.

It's pathetic.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The difference between you and me Heck is.....


That I don't try to ram any quasi-religious beliefs and cult-idol worship down anyone else's throat. 
Now, move on, will you??


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's pathetic.


lol!! Coming from you, that is an endorsement I shall cling to long, and close to my heart!! Hehe....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> That I don't try to ram any quasi-religious beliefs and cult-idol worship down anyone else's throat.
> Now, move on, will you??


You're the only one on this thread who buys the idea that music represents only what is written in the score. You and Toscanini, a couple of extinct dinosaurs.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You'....


 0 for 3, move along please


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> 0 for 3, move along please


All three of your points were lies. I never made any of those claims. What the hell are you talking about? Those were three called balls!


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> All three of your points we!


0 for 3....you need help. Moderators should really shut this down.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> 0 for 3....you need help. Moderators should really shut this down.


Debating means taking what the other person said, quoting it, and then refuting it, or trying to.

It doesn't mean making up your own BS and then refuting THAT!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> 0 for 3....you need help. Moderators should really shut this down.


In an Orwellian turn, the suggestion for medicalization ("you need help") and silencing opinion ("Moderators should really shut this down") is troubling, to say the least.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> In an Orwellian turn, the suggestion for medicalization ("you need help") and silencing opinion ("Moderators should really shut this down") is troubling, to say the least.


It's the whole point of his philosophy, and Toscanini's. Silence thought, silence discussion.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's the whole point of his philosophy, and Toscanini's. Silence thought, silence discussion.


Judging from Heck's apparent fascination with Toscanini, Reiner, Boulez, and Solti, he/she seems to have played in the CSO? It would certainly make sense about Heck's philosophy of precision and "perfect execution". Didn't CSO invite Furtwangler postwar to be their chief conductor but rejected because of opposition led by Toscanini for his Nazi-associations?

This school of thought is very fine, but I failed to see why a professional musician should get triggered by a different school of thought. As an outsider, I know that Furtwangler does not give clear beats to the orchestra in order to get unique sounds and more spontaneity out of the orchestra. This is very risky and results in occasional sloppiness and failures of execution but the payoff is immense. Where does this spontaneity come from? Why so many people find this spontaneity convincing, as opposed to, say, Mengelberg's approach? Furtwangler's earlier recordings are also much similar to Toscanini's approach than Mengelberg.

Furtwangler was also vocal about his "spiritual" approach and his quote about "sensualize the spiritual" is simply a continuation of Beethoven's quote that "music is the mediator between the spiritual and the sensual life". Beethoven also said that

"Music is higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents."

Why the pitchforks? Does it matter whether the spiritual domain really "exists" or not? Is Beethoven also "Baloney"? I am sorry, but I can't see how you can reject such idea without delving into the philosophical nitty-gritties or simply being a dogmatic materialist who label such thought as being supernatural.

Either way, I don't see the urge and possibility to declare a fast victory against someone who is just expressing his understanding of music (for the most part), which seems fairly ordinary and genuine enough for me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Certainly an intriguing hypothetical - if Furtwängler had accepted headship of the CSO, what direction the orchestra would have gone in. Of course they have become known through the years as a top-notch virtuoso band with an elite brass section; as fostered by Reiner’s obsessive focus on precision and Solti’s preference for huge, blazing textures. I wonder if, under Furtwängler, they would still have the same reputation, because he was not nearly as concerned about outward polish of playing.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Certainly an intriguing hypothetical - if Furtwängler had accepted headship of the CSO, what direction the orchestra would have gone in. Of course they have become known through the years as a top-notch virtuoso band with an elite brass section; as fostered by Reiner's obsessive focus on precision and Solti's preference for huge, blazing textures. I wonder if, under Furtwängler, they would still have the same reputation, because he was not nearly as concerned about outward polish of playing.


That's certainly a nightmarish thought for many CSO fans. I have been a regular to many CSO concerts for the past few years and I can't say I am too crazy about Muti. I am more of a BSO person.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Certainly an intriguing hypothetical - if Furtwängler had accepted headship of the CSO, what direction the orchestra would have gone in. Of course they have become known through the years as a top-notch virtuoso band with an elite brass section; as fostered by Reiner's obsessive focus on precision and Solti's preference for huge, blazing textures. I wonder if, under Furtwängler, they would still have the same reputation, because he was not nearly as concerned about outward polish of playing.


Or New York Phil in 1936. The Nazis had a hand in stopping that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> This school of thought is very fine, but I failed to see why a professional musician should get triggered by a different school of thought


This. Nailed it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This. Nailed it.


When it comes to the "fun" and virtuoso pieces such as Respighi, Rossini Overtures, Scheherazade, Bartok Concerto, I think no one can deny the unparalleled brilliance and thrill of Toscanini and Reiner's recordings. But in other areas, it's certainly debatable whether their approach is preferable, or have captured the "spirit of the work" in the listener's heart. Some people simply enjoy the razor sharp sound and precise attacks of the bow, or the excellent audio quality of Living Stereo series. Others look for the right atmosphere and how the music present itself in their mind as a cohesive whole.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> When it comes to the "fun" and virtuoso pieces such as Respighi, Rossini Overtures, Scheherazade, Bartok Concerto, I think no one can deny the unparalleled brilliance and thrill of Toscanini and Reiner's recordings. But in other areas, it's certainly debatable whether their approach is preferable, or have captured the "spirit of the work" in the listener's heart. Some people simply enjoy the razor sharp sound and precise attacks of the bow, or the excellent audio quality of Living Stereo series. Others look for the right atmosphere and how the music present itself in their mind as a cohesive whole.


Yup. There are times when I just want a bath in warm, Romantic, indulgent opulence and I'll play some Karajan, and sometimes I want to hear spitfire orchestral execution in crystal-clear sound and I'll listen to Reiner. And though there are some recordings from each that I treasure in terms of interpretive value (Karajan more so than Reiner) they will never match Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter among others IMO as the greatest consummate masters of interpreting scores - going deeper than just the notes to convey something meaningful to the listener, whatever that may be.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> When it comes to the "fun" and virtuoso pieces such as Respighi, Rossini Overtures, Scheherazade, Bartok Concerto, I think no one can deny the unparalleled brilliance and thrill of Toscanini and Reiner's recordings. But in other areas,* it's certainly debatable whether their approach is preferable, or have captured the "spirit of the work" in the listener's heart*. Some people simply enjoy the razor sharp sound and precise attacks of the bow, or the excellent audio quality of Living Stereo series. *Others look for the right atmosphere and how the music present itself in their mind as a cohesive whole*.





Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yup. There are times when I just want a bath in warm, Romantic, indulgent opulence and I'll play some Karajan, and sometimes I want to hear spitfire orchestral execution in crystal-clear sound and I'll listen to Reiner. And though there are some recordings from each that I treasure in terms of interpretive value (Karajan more so than Reiner) they will never match Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter among others IMO as the greatest consummate masters of interpreting scores - *going deeper than just the notes to convey something meaningful to the listener*, whatever that may be.


You guys can't help yourselves!

As if there is a "Right" 'atmosphere' and as if only Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter etc "go deeper than just the notes" and have a monopoly on "Meaning".

But this has all been said before.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yup. There are times when I just want a bath in warm, Romantic, indulgent opulence and I'll play some Karajan, and sometimes I want to hear spitfire orchestral execution in crystal-clear sound and I'll listen to Reiner. And though there are some recordings from each that I treasure in terms of interpretive value (Karajan more so than Reiner) they will never match Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter among others IMO as the greatest consummate masters of interpreting scores - going deeper than just the notes to convey something meaningful to the listener, whatever that may be.


How can it be that you and I are hearing the exact same thing? I thought it was all magic fairy tales and nonsense.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Arbitrary preferences dressed up in the tripe of the 'absolute'. Same with this:
> 
> You guys can't help yourselves.


So I was right. You really do think that it's all random.

How do you explain people coming to the same conclusions?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yup. There are times when I just want a bath in warm, Romantic, indulgent opulence and I'll play some Karajan, and sometimes I want to hear spitfire orchestral execution in crystal-clear sound and I'll listen to Reiner. And though there are some recordings from each that I treasure in terms of interpretive value (Karajan more so than Reiner) they will never match Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter among others IMO as the greatest consummate masters of interpreting scores - going deeper than just the notes to convey something meaningful to the listener, whatever that may be.


Well put. Let's not forget both Furtwangler and Bernstein are composers. Furtwangler was less successful but he still composed a serious body of works (3 symphonies, 1 Piano concerto, chamber, and solo works) This internal understanding of the creative process grant them a different perspective on interpreting the music. So the liberties (or "transgression") they took shouldn't be understood in the literal sense.

Whether they are guided by intuition, or unconsciousness, or some notion of "truth", is simply semantic - they are guided by something that made more sense in the listener's mind. The same can be said about Toscanini's Verdi and Puccini, they made sense and they felt like the "right" way to unfold the work, "truth" or not is just a convenient term.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> As if there is a "Right" 'atmosphere'.


Of course, there is. Some people like their coffee hot, some people like their coffee cold, some like whole milk, some like sugar. It can be habitual, but it also can have rational reasoning (because it balances the bitterness, because it increases consistency...).

Most people don't want their funeral march played like Rossini overture, most people don't want their Bruckner played with Mendelsson's lightness and transparency, most people don't like Hammerklavier to be played like a virtuoso piece, I can go on and on.



RogerWaters said:


> As if only Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter etc "go deeper than just the notes" and have a monopoly on "Meaning".


Again, you mistook "an opinion stated in terms of the universal statement" as "a statement about universal fact". If you can't distinguish the two, then you will be stuck in your logic loop again. It is clearly understood that's what Allegro con brio found to be meaningful to him.



RogerWaters said:


> You guys can't help yourselves!


Of course, we can't help ourselves talking about music like normal human beings, free of ad hom attacks and the relentless demand for rigorous "proofs" and "validations" that are clearly misplaced in the discussion.

I am not bothered if Heck thinks Toscanini is the greatest and most influential conductor, that Furtwangler is often too sloppy for modern taste. I can understand that perfectly. I state a case and I am perfectly fine with what he/she thinks.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You're just not getting what I'm saying. I have said dozens upon dozens of times that truth is INDEFINABLE. It exists as an abstract concept, but it DOES exist insofar as (A) we are all seeking to grasp it, and (B) to varying degrees we observe it in our opinions and reactions.


If you can't explain what your musical 'truth' is, then you've no justification for using the concept.

And it's simply false to claim that 'we are all seeking to grasp' truth in music. Members in this very discussion have been telling you they do not give a damn about 'truth' when it comes to their musical preferences.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> But in the absence of truth, even in the abstract, we are left in a vaccuum of meaningless preferences. I do not think that is valid, anymore than saying that morals, ethics, and systems of justice are based on random preference.


But you can't even say what you _mean_ by 'truth' in this context. So how, on earth, could it be the meaningful contrast to "meaningless" preferences?!

And my musical preferences are not meaningless to me, thank you very much.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I don't think anyone here - or possibly anywhere - believes that there is nothing to music beyond the notes on the page. Anyone who thinks that would have to be content to have music performed by robots or computers. Everyone knows that musical scores require interpretation; there is virtually no such thing as an absolutely literal rendering of a score by human beings, and virtually no human being would want to hear one. The real question is how far beyond the score a performer can go and remain within those boundaries of reasonable interpretation. So long as we're within them, it's every man for himself, and no one can claim to have the "truth."


This is obviously true, to anyone who can think clearly about these matters.

Well said.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Of course, there is. Some people like their coffee hot, some people like their coffee cold, some like whole milk, some like sugar. It can be habitual, but it also can have rational reasoning (because it balances the bitterness, because it increases consistency...).
> 
> Most people don't want their funeral march played like Rossini overture, most people don't want their Bruckner played with Mendelsson's lightness and transparency, most people don't like Hammerklavier to be played like a virtuoso piece, I can go on and on.


Apart from defending nonsense, you and BH both have a tendency to take the least charitable interpretation of your opponents and to run with it like it's a trophy.

I was clearly talking about the absurdity of the idea of a "Right" atmosphere that would differentiate world-class conductors from one another. World-class conductors don't play the funeral march like a Rossini overture.

What are we to think of your intellectual credibility when you make these kind of moves?



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *Again, you mistook "an opinion stated in terms of the universal statement" as "a statement about universal fact".* If you can't distinguish the two, then you will be stuck in your logic loop again. It is clearly understood that's what Allegro con brio found to be meaningful to him.


Please see this.

Anyway, it's not clear, as he wrote about his favored conductors being the only ones able to impart meaning to the listener.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Of course, we can't help ourselves talking about music like normal human beings, free of ad hom attacks and the relentless demand for rigorous "proofs" and "validations" that are clearly misplaced in the discussion..


If you think you talk about music like a 'normal human being', then you need to spend more time with said normies!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I said nothing about universal truth but simply that, in my opinion, the conductors I mentioned do a better job at interpreting the score than Reiner and Karajan. That’s all there is to it.


----------



## RogerWaters

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I said nothing about universal truth but simply that, in my opinion, the conductors I mentioned do a better job at interpreting the score than Reiner and Karajan. That's all there is to it.


My God, not the "If I just put 'in my opinion' in front of an absolute claim, it doesn't make it an absolute claim" business again.

I refer you to this.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

RogerWaters said:


> My God, not the "If I just put 'in my opinion' in front of an absolute claim, it doesn't make it an absolute claim" business again.
> 
> I refer you to this.


But it wasn't an absolute claim.

Let me rephrase:

"I like Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter better than Karajan and Reiner."

I was simply explaining the reason why I like them better; how they resound with me personally. No offense intended.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Apart from defending nonsense, you and BH both have a tendency to take the least charitable interpretation of your opponents and to run with it like it's a trophy.


"defending nonsense", "least charitable interpretation", "run with it like it's a trophy". That's three ad hom attacks in one sentence. Bravo.



RogerWaters said:


> As if there is a "Right" 'atmosphere'.





RogerWaters said:


> I was clearly talking about the absurdity of the idea of a "Right" atmosphere that would differentiate world-class conductors from one another.


Yes, you were very clear about "the absurdity of the idea of a "Right" atmosphere that would differentiate world-class conductors from one another". Stupid me, How did I not see it? I should ask my psychiatrist for dyslexia.



RogerWaters said:


> What are we to think of your intellectual credibility when you make these kind of moves?


I admit that I don't have any, in the presence of an intellectual giant such as yourself.



RogerWaters said:


> Intellectual garbage! I'm not even sure what idea you are trying to express with your last sentence.


Yes, maybe it's just garbage, maybe it's not even intellectual.



RogerWaters said:


> If you think you talk about music like a 'normal human being', then you need to spend more time with said normies!


Thank you for your kind advice, but I am afraid that I don't deserve to be in the presence of "normies" like you.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "defending nonsense", "least charitable interpretation", "run with it like it's a trophy". That's three ad hom attacks in one sentence. Bravo.


In your law court you wouldn't be able to charge a man with, say, slander, because that would be 'ad hom'!

You make a dick move in an argument, clearly strawmanning my own, and I pulled you up on it. Get over it, grow up, and move on.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> You make a dick move in an argument, clearly strawmanning my own, and I pulled you up on it. Get over it, grow up, and move on.


Now you are just being too modest.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> And my musical preferences are not meaningless to me, thank you very much.


You've just proved what I have been saying all along. So where are we in disagreement?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> This is obviously true, to anyone who can think clearly about these matters.
> 
> Well said.


And haven't I been saying that nobody can claim to have the truth as well?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Anyway, it's not clear, as he wrote about his favored conductors being the only ones *able* to impart meaning to the listener.


The word "able" is a very subtly critical word choice here. He didn't say they weren't capable. He was just generalizing based on what he heard. Why is he not entitled to that opinion?


----------



## Woodduck

1.) It is virtually impossible for a musical interpretation to be absolutely true to a composer's intention unless the composer himself conducts or supervises it. The score doesn't tell the whole story, and we can't read the composer's mind.

2.) Nevertheless, it _is_ possible for a musical interpretation to make more or less musical sense. Not only does the score itself establish or suggest boundaries to possible readings, but information about the work, its origins, its composer's thinking, its cultural position, and its performing traditions and precedents all play a legitimate and sometimes necessary part in informing a performer's interpretation of the notes on the page.

3.) Despite the possibility of a composer conducting a performance he feels represents his intentions for the work as he conceived it, it is a fact that those intentions are unlikely to be absolutely stable and binding, and they may represent only his feelings at the moment. There are plenty of instances of composers expressing approval of very different interpretations of their works (Sibelius is well-known example), and even instances of composers themselves giving notably different performances (Wagner conducted his _Parsifal_ prelude on two occasions, and one of them took a couple of minutes longer than the other; he also took the baton from Hermann Levi at the final performance of the opera's first run, and the singers commented on being taxed for breath by his slow tempi).

"Fidelity to the score" represents a very wide spectrum of possibilty which in practice may require not much more than playing the notes in the right order. Toscanini's "to me it's allegro con brio" was aphoristic point-making, not a comprehensive theory of performance, and it's silly to argue its merits. The idea of "literalism" as an approach to musical performance is both unrealistic and repellent, and it represents a kind of absolutism which cannot apply to aesthetic judgments. But Furtwangler's statement that there is "only one correct conception and execution" of a work represents another form of absolutism - we might call it an "idealist" as opposed to an "objectivist" absolutism - and it is likewise fallacious.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> But Furtwangler's statement that there is "only one correct conception and execution" of a work represents another form of absolutism - we might call it an "idealist" as opposed to an "objectivist" absolutism - and it is likewise fallacious.


Honest question: Why did you leave out the rest of Furtwängler's statement, that we can never realize this correct conception in reality and can only hope to approximate it. Don't you think that's important in understanding his meaning?

We have to remember that Furtwängler could produce two very different interpretations on consecutive evenings. His point wasn't "my way is right, your way is wrong." His point was that truth exists only in the abstract, and we are all just trying to reach it.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You've just proved what I have been saying all along. So where are we in disagreement?


'Meaning' does not imply 'truth'. Something can be meaningful without being true. In fact, something must be meaningful before it can be judged true or false.

The statement 'God exists' is meaningful. It expresses a coherent proposotion. Thus the statement can be judged true or false depending on what it claims about the world (that there is an entity with the features attributed by the label 'God').

The statement 'God goes blue triange' is not meaningful. It does not express a coherent proposition. Thus, it cannot be judged true or false. It's just nonsense.

Of course, the above relates to statements, where 'meaning' is relatively clear and 'truth' is relatively clear. When it comes to music, 'meaning' just means something like enjoyable and 'truth' means.... what? Nada.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> "Fidelity to the score" represents a very wide spectrum of possibilty which in practice may entail not much more than playing the notes in the right order. Toscanini's "to me it's allegro con brio" was aphoristic point-making, not a comprehensive theory of performance, and it's silly to argue its merits. The idea of "literalism" as an approach to musical performance is both unrealistic and repellent, and it represents a kind of absolutism which cannot apply to aesthetic judgments. But Furtwangler's statement that there is "only one correct conception and execution" of a work represents another form of absolutism - we might call it an "idealist" as opposed to an "objectivist" absolutism - and it is likewise fallacious.


I understand that for performers "absolutism" has a role to play, that is to grant them the necessary conviction to perform in a certain way that is arbitrary and unstable otherwise.

It also has a role to play for listeners to be able to make aesthetic judgments on performances that are difficult to compare otherwise. We should be cautious about extending its external validity (to universalize the idea) but in most contexts, it is understood that it's just one way to look at things because the advocates for certain aesthetics have no real coercive power to impose such a view.

Even if one strongly believes in absolutism, it is still not possible to completely invalidate such a view. It's worth criticizing for what it stands for and what it implies for art (if applied universally), but not to the extent that such a view cannot coexist with more reasonable aesthetics.

I do agree that we should avoid mischaracterizing conductors and others. But a certain margin of error should be tolerated to avoid the tribal games of semantics. But maybe that's what's really fascinating.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His point was that truth exists only in the abstract, and we are all just trying to reach it.


What does this even mean? I've seen you state it numerous times. Are you thinking something Platonic?

A perfect triangle only exists in the abstract, and Plato thought each concretely existing triangle was trying to 'reach' the abstract form of triangleness, in some sense. So 'truth' here means a fit between particular things and their abstract forms. A partciular triangle is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract mathematical form of a triangle. A particular mobile phone is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract form of mobile phone-ness. A particular musical performance of Beethoven's 5th is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract form of Beethoven's 5th....

This theory is obviously absurd in the 21st century.

The non-material form of a triangle doesn't exist. It is a mental construct. Concretely existing triangles (which are always imperfect to differing degrees) are judged, _by us_, as lying closer or farther from a perfect triangle. Our mental expectations create the abstract 'form' of a triangle. No such thing exists in mind-independent reality.

Applied to music, you can see how the analogy would go. There is no abstract form of Beethoven's 5th, for God's sake. Our mental expectations, informed by the score, historical context, individual emotions and musical education/experiences, create the standard by which 'concrete' individual performances of Beethoven's 5th are judged as closer to/farther from. And, unlike the mental expectations giving rise the idea of perfect 'triangleness', the mental expectations creating the idea of a perfect Beethoven's 5th diverge markedly. Your mental expectations of the perfect B 5 are different to mine. Thus, it is questionable whether there even is, in the thin, mentalistic, sense, a single abstract form of B5. So there can be no 'truth' of the matter - if you're understanding truth as the degree of proximity between particulars and their abstract forms. There will simply be degrees of fit between different performances of B5 and _different people's subjective expectations_ of what B5 should sound like.

Using the word 'truth' for this fit is rediculous. It's like hipster university students claiming 'everyone has their own truths, man!', as they pass round the joint.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Imagine hearing a Beethoven 5th that is absolutely the most orgasmic performance of the Beethoven 5th you could have ever imagined hearing, sending you into a state of ecstasy and everlasting Nirvana, without it necessarily fitting into any objective preconception of how it should go (tempos and whatnot).

That’s what I mean by the ideal Beethoven 5th. Something existing only in the abstract.

Another comparison: Ever seen the Monty Python skit where a guy writes the world’s funniest joke and dies laughing? And then the British translate into German so they use it in combat to kill the enemy? Same idea. They never told us the joke, of course. It was just the concept of the funniest joke ever told.

How does this apply in any substantive way to what we are discussing? You cannot approximate the ideal version of a piece you are performing by merely pedantically presenting the score in objective form. It takes more than that. That’s the whole point. The music does not speak for itself.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> The statement 'God exists' is meaningful. It expresses a coherent proposotion. Thus the statement can be judged true or false depending on what it claims about the world (that there is an entity with the features attributed by the label 'God').


Whether the statement is meaningful or not depends on the context. God can mean many different things. In the middle ages, God means the first mover, the absolute, or the entirety of the universe (which cannot be viewed from an independent point of view), so it might not be an entity at all.

For people who have no concept of god, such statement is also meaningless.



RogerWaters said:


> The statement 'God goes blue triange' is not meaningful. It does not express a coherent proposition. Thus, it cannot be judged true or false. It's just nonsense.


Again, whether this statement is meaningful or not, depends on the context. If God is the name of my dog, and Blue triangle is the name of the Diner across the street. Then this statement is meaningful.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Imagine hearing a Beethoven 5th that is absolutely the most orgasmic performance of the Beethoven 5th you could have ever imagined hearing, sending you into a state of ecstasy and everlasting Nirvana, without it necessarily fitting into any objective preconception of how it should go (tempos and whatnot).
> 
> That's what I mean by the ideal Beethoven 5th. Something existing only in the abstract.


OK fine, you have a vague concept of the ideal B5. But this will be different from other people's concept of the ideal B5. So no place for the concept 'truth' there. Unless you are debasing 'truth' to mean individual preferences, which you have stated the past you are not, so your position remains utterly confounding to me.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Another comparison: Ever seen the Monty Python skit where a guy writes the world's funniest joke and dies laughing? And then the British translate into German so they use it in combat to kill the enemy? Same idea. They never told us the joke, of course. It was just the concept of the funniest joke ever told.
> 
> How does this apply in any substantive way to what we are discussing? You cannot approximate the ideal version of a piece you are performing by merely pedantically presenting the score in objective form. It takes more than that. That's the whole point. The music does not speak for itself.


I'm not at all seeing how the abstract concept of the world's funniest joke applies to not merely pedantically presenting a score in objective form.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Whether the statement is meaningful or not depends on the context. God can mean many different things. In the middle ages, God means the first mover, the absolute, or the entirety of the universe (which cannot be viewed from an independent point of view), so it might not be an entity at all.
> 
> For people who have no concept of god, such statement is also meaningless.
> 
> Again, whether this statement is meaningful or not, depends on the context. If God is the name of my dog, and Blue triangle is the name of the Diner across the street. Then this statement is meaningful.


You simply cannot help but represent other people's comments in the most unhelpful way possible can you. It's incredible.

Do you do it just so you have something to say? Don't you have better things to do?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> A perfect triangle only exists in the abstract, and Plato thought each concretely existing triangle was trying to 'reach' the abstract form of triangleness, in some sense. So 'truth' here means a fit between particular things and their abstract forms. A partciular triangle is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract mathematical form of a triangle. A particular mobile phone is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract form of mobile phone-ness. A particular musical performance of Beethoven's 5th is more 'true' than another if the former is closer to the abstract form of Beethoven's 5th....
> 
> This theory is obviously absurd in the 21st century.


Nope, I have bad news for you, majority of mathematicians right now are Platonists.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> You simply cannot help but represent other people's comments in the most unhelpful way possible can you. It's incredible.
> 
> Do you do it just so you have something to say? Don't you have better things to do?


If you want logic, you will have logic.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Honest question: Why did you leave out the rest of Furtwängler's statement, that we can never realize this correct conception in reality and can only hope to approximate it. Don't you think that's important in understanding his meaning?
> 
> We have to remember that Furtwängler could produce two very different interpretations on consecutive evenings. His point wasn't "my way is right, your way is wrong." His point was that truth exists only in the abstract, and we are all just trying to reach it.


It wasn't necessary to quote him in full to make my point, but if I'd included the rest it would only have reinforced what I did say, which was that, contrary to Furtwangler - and, apparently, you - there is NO SUCH THING AS "ONE CORRECT CONCEPTION" OF A MUSICAL WORK WHICH WE SHOULD STRIVE TO REALIZE. I coined a term for that view - "idealist absolutism" - and said that it is as fallacious as the "objectivist absolutism" of literalism. I'm actually doubtful that Furtwangler would have stood by his own statement if pressed on it, as I'm doubtful that Toscanini would have stood by his. Both men were good enough musicians to realize that their practice invalidated their statements.

I need to say this: your _"truth exists only in the abstract, and we are all just trying to reach it" _ is a misuse of language. There is no "true" mental image of a musical work that "we" are trying to reach. Every conductor is trying to get an orchestra to play music the way he wants it to sound. That's it. Period. Talk of some abstract "truth" is irrelevant and is responsible for much of the confusion, strawmanning and animosity in these discussions.

If I feel that Furtwangler's Beethoven gets closer to what I feel is the "true" Beethoven than Toscanini's, that is my feeling, based on the aspects of Beethoven I happen to favor for whatever reason. I have no proof that I'm right about Beethoven or his intentions for the performance of his music. It's probable - no, certain - that Beethoven's own performances would have been different from those of both conductors. Yet it's also possible that he would have seen both of their approaches as plausible.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If you want logic, you will have logic.


No. You take the most marginal interpretation of others' claims which would make them wrong, when there much more conventional interpretations which would make them right.

The statement 'God goes blue triangles' is of course nonsense _if the words mean what most people would take them to mean_.

To take the time to point out to me that this sentence is not nonsense if 'God' refers to someone's dog and 'blue triangles' refers to a restaurant, is just strange (even omitting the fact that without 'to' before 'blue triangles' the sentence on your interpretation is still nonsense). Of course your right, but there are many truths I can walk about telling people on the street until my head turns green. Stating these truths, though, would not be normal.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Nope, I have bad news for you, majority of mathematicians right now are Platonists.


Thanks for engaging with what I actually meant, as opposed to marginal interpretations.

I would be interested in empirical evidence on this, for general knowledge. And are they unreflective platonists or do they retain their platonism after explicit consideration?

And anyway, even if the majority _do_ think the abstract form of a triangle must exist, in order for this to make sense of mathematical truth, this does not mean the view isn't crazy in many other respects - such as how, on earth, we can have epistemological access to 'abstract objects'; how on earth abstract objects exist in the first place; the fact we can explain shared ideas by reference to psychology and evolution instead of pre-life contact with the world of forms; etc.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I understand that for performers "absolutism" has a role to play, that is to grant them the necessary conviction to perform in a certain way that is arbitrary and unstable otherwise.
> 
> It also has a role to play for listeners to be able to make aesthetic judgments on performances that are difficult to compare otherwise. We should be cautious about extending its external validity (to universalize the idea) but in most contexts, it is understood that it's just one way to look at things because the advocates for certain aesthetics have no real coercive power to impose such a view.
> 
> Even if one strongly believes in absolutism, it is still not possible to completely invalidate such a view. It's worth criticizing for what it stands for and what it implies for art (if applied universally), but not to the extent that such a view cannot coexist with more reasonable aesthetics.
> 
> I do agree that we should avoid mischaracterizing conductors and others. But a certain margin of error should be tolerated to avoid the tribal games of semantics. But maybe that's what's really fascinating.


I'm afraid I don't understand this post.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> There is no "true" mental image of a musical work that "we" are trying to reach. Every conductor is trying to get an orchestra to play music the way he wants it to sound. That's it. Period. Talk of some abstract "truth" is irrelevant and is responsible for much of the confusion, strawmanning and animosity in these discussions.


"Truth" is a problematic and contentious concept in this case. BH probably thought "inner truth" as "the way he wants it to sound", that's how I understand his position. It is a valid idea of approximating truth because that what perfectionist perfect for, although many people have trouble understanding it without clarification.

To be honest, I don't think that's a heinous misuse of language in daily discussion. A similar idea of "truth" can be found in scientific field as well, for example, the idea of "true parameter" in statistics is almost analogous.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck, I respect you, but every time you say something along the lines of “I have no proof of my concept being the ideal correct one” it says to me you still don’t understand the point of an abstract, undefinable ideal. It’s something we aim for. It’s not something we obtain.

I may present my view, and then hear yours and think, “Holy cow, I never thought of it that way before!”

The key is to always be thinking beyond. My issue is with people who want to limit creativity and discovery by saying that the score is what the score is, and you just let people make up whatever they want to make up about it. No, there is so much more to it than that.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> "Truth" is a problematic and contentious concept in this case.


It certainly is.



> BH probably thought "inner truth" as "the way he wants it to sound", that's how I understand his position.


If that's all "truth" were intended to mean, there would be no need to use it to discuss the work of any particular conductor, which BH has done. By that definition Toscanini's work is as full of "truth" as Furtwangler's. Hell, so is Andre Rieu's. What then have we said by invoking "truth"? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I'm afraid I don't understand this post.


I apologize for the verbiage.

When I play Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, I face all these choices of interpretation, should I repeat the Grave, how should I voice the Chorale of the second movement, whether I want to go for dry sound or not in the LH of the last movement, etc. Without some kind of aesthetic absolutism, I cannot be certain "what is the best way to approach" this work and my interpretation will suffer from it. What I am saying is that for performers, idealism or literalism or any form of absolutism serves a pragmatic function, as the ultimate objective to strive for.

When this coincides with the listener, the idea of "getting close to the truth" or "this is the right way" is fairly intuitive and no more reprehensible than saying X is the best, Y is the top. People should not assume that such view is a statement of universal fact.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Woodduck, I respect you, but every time you say something along the lines of "I have no proof of my concept being the ideal correct one" it says to me you still don't understand the point of an abstract, undefinable ideal. It's something we aim for. It's not something we obtain.


If your abstract ideal has no specific content, there is nothing to aim for.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I apologize for the verbiage.
> 
> When I play Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata, I face all these choices of interpretation, should I repeat the Grave, how should I voice the Chorale of the second movement, whether I want to go for dry sound or not in the LH of the last movement, etc. Without some kind of aesthetic absolutism, I cannot be certain "what is the best way to approach" this work and my interpretation will suffer from it. What I am saying is that for performers, idealism or literalism or any form of absolutism serves a pragmatic function, as the ultimate objective to strive for.
> 
> When this coincides with the listener, the idea of "getting close to the truth" or "this is the right way" is fairly intuitive and no more reprehensible than saying X is the best, Y is the top. People should not assume that such view is a statement of universal fact.


I am also a musician, and I am not aware of any "absolutism" telling what to do and not to do in realizing a score. "Absolutism" is not a synonym for "reasonable limits on choice." It's a philosophical perspective. I think I was clear in identifying the respective absolutist implications of Toscanini's and Furtwangler's statements, both of which, as stated, I reject.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> It certainly is.
> 
> If that's all "truth" were intended to mean, there would be no need to use it to discuss the work of any particular conductor, which BH has done. By that definition Toscanini's work is as full of "truth" as Furtwangler's. Hell, so is Andre Rieu's. What then have we said by invoking "truth"? Absolutely nothing.


That's not true. BH clearly made specific points about various recordings why he thinks Furtwangler's "truth" is truthier than Toscanini's "truth" because Furtwangler's approach corresponds to his ideal of how Beethoven should be played.

Are people seriously thinking that he is saying that others' ideal interpretation is untrue? He repeated so many times that no one has monopoly on truth ad nausea. If he has such a ridiculous idea why should people even care, I wonder.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I am also a musician, and I am not aware of any "absolutism" telling what to do and not to do in realizing a score. "Absolutism" is not a synonym for "reasonable limits on choice." It's a philosophical perspective. I think I was clear in identifying the respective absolutist implications of Toscanini's and Furtwangler's statements, both of which, as stated, I reject.


Full disclaimer, I am not a professional musician so I do not represent anything professional.

Sure, but a philosophical perspective leads to a consistent set of "limits on choice" that is reasonable in your view, whether you are conscious of such perspective or not. In practice, such a perspective must be "absolute" in the sense that it necessarily excludes other alternative perspectives.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's not true. BH clearly made specific points about various recordings why he thinks Furtwangler's "truth" is truthier than Toscanini's "truth" because Furtwangler's approach corresponds to his ideal of how Beethoven should be played.
> 
> Are people seriously thinking that he is saying that others' ideal interpretation is untrue? He repeated so many times that no one has monopoly on truth ad nausea. If he has such a ridiculous idea why should people even care, I wonder.


I'm interested because BH seems to think there is something more than just (intersubjective) preference going on, but I don't see it.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Debating means takin.......


Seriously, dude, you need to get a life.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> In an Orwellian turn, the suggestion for medicalization ("you need help") and silencing opinion ("Moderators should really shut this down") is troubling, to say the least.


He does need help....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I'm interested because BH seems to think there is something more than just (intersubjective) preference going on, but I don't see it.


Then fine, what's the big deal? It's not the first time someone on the Internet saying things I can't fully comprehend.

I think I know what he is saying, just put in a slightly roundabout way. Even if that language is "poetic" or "self-indulgent", even if his understanding of interpretation lacks sophistication, how offensive can he be? Is he really the offensive one here?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's the whole point of his philosophy,


the whole point of your "philosophy" is totally discredited bs. 
move on, already, get a life.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> If your abstract ideal has no specific content, there is nothing to aim for.


Categorically false. Every interpretive decision is made in an attempt to reach that ideal. Sometimes the decisions are made in the middle of the performance. It is the idea of the ideal that guides your decisions, not the reality of it.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Full disclaimer, I am not a professional musician so I do not represent anything professional.
> 
> Sure, but a philosophical perspective leads to a consistent set of "limits on choice" that is reasonable in your view, whether you are conscious of such perspective or not. In practice, such a perspective must be "absolute" in the sense that it necessarily excludes other alternative perspectives.


By that definition everything is "absolute" because it isn't something else!

I'm desperate to see a careful use of language here. Language is our only tool, folks, and if we keep making our own definitions we'll end up... well, exactly where we are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Seriously, dude, you need to get a life.


The adults are talking. Find a thread more your level to go play in.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Categorically false. Every interpretive decision is made in an attempt to reach that ideal. Sometimes the decisions are made in the middle of the performance. It is the idea of the ideal that guides your decisions, not the reality of it.


Categorically uncomprehending. Read me again a few times.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> .....Furtwängler, Klemperer, Barbirolli, Bernstein, and Walter among others IMO as the greatest consummate masters of interpreting scores - going deeper than just the notes to convey something meaningful to the listener, whatever that may be.


Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Mravinsky are easily the equals, or superiors to any of those others in terms of artistic, powerfully expressive interpretation. They are not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ....I thought it was all magic fairy tales and nonsense.


You are right!! it is....:lol:


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Then fine, what's the big deal? It's not the first time someone on the Internet saying things I can't fully comprehend.
> 
> I think I know what he is saying, just put in a slightly roundabout way. Even if that language is "poetic" or "self-indulgent", even if his understanding of interpretation lacks sophistication, how offensive can he be? Is he really the offensive one here?


He's not offensive. He's just wrong. I like debating/arguing, but constructively.

I just cruise round to this thread every now and then and see where things are at, and where I think I can guide the convo onto a playing field where everyone can agree. BH and yourself seem to be more interested in having your own thing going than on shared agreement.

I can't even reach agreement with BH on what we _disagree_ about, he's that shifty!


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I'm desperate to see a careful use of language here. Language is our only tool, folks, and if we keep making our own definitions we'll end up... well, exactly where we are.


I agree with this wholeheartedly.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> BH and yourself seem to be more interested in having your own thing going than on shared agreement.


Huh? I'm interested in agreeing with what sounds true to me. Why should I ever do otherwise?


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Categorically false. Every interpretive decision is made in an attempt to reach that ideal. Sometimes the decisions are made in the middle of the performance. It is the idea of the ideal that guides your decisions, not the reality of it.


You said that a conductor's ideal, or "truth," is something he aims for, not something he obtains. But at the same time you claim that that the ideal has no specific content. I'm saying that you can't aim for something that has no specific content. Why is this so hard to understand? I would think everyone would find it self-evident.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I said nothing about universal truth but simply that, in my opinion, the conductors I mentioned do a better job at interpreting the score than Reiner and Karajan. That's all there is to it.


IMO, Reiner and Toscanini do a far better job at interpreting the score than Furtwangler et al....whoopee...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Mravinsky are easily the equals, or superiors to any of those others in terms of artistic, powerfully expressive interpretation. They are not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage....


Putting aside your definition of ideas beyond the mere notes...what do you mean by encumbered? How exactly do the performances of these conductors become "encumbered?" What's an example?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> By that definition everything is "absolute" because it isn't something else!
> 
> I'm desperate to see a careful use of language here. Language is our only tool, folks, and if we keep making our own definitions we'll end up... well, exactly where we are.


That's the essence of dialectics in my view, which is progress because we are constantly clarifying and reconciling, I hope. I am saddened that you do not seem to share this view.

A thing does not have a choice to be one or to be another. But an interpretation is a set of choices dictated by achieving a certain objective. Call it whatever you wish, but to have the consistency of the choices is to hold such objective absolute (during the performance).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> You said that a conductor's ideal, or "truth," is something he aims for, not something he obtains. But at the same time you claim that that the ideal has no specific content. I'm saying that you can't aim for something that has no specific content. Why is this so hard to understand? I would think everyone would find it self-evident.


I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and I don't understand why it is so hard to understand what I am saying.

Think of a prophet or priest-like person speaking extemporaneously. They may have no idea what they are going to say. But in that moment of Zen, the truth appears before them as they start speaking. They are aiming for truth, and nuggets of truth pour out of them.

It is no different from a conductor like Furtwangler experiencing the music anew as he is conducting it, experiencing the "truth" of it anew. He is inspired in that moment by the search for truth. It is the abstract idea of it that inspires his actions. It is not a concrete form, like a ghost form of a wizard instructing him, "Okay, Wilhelm, now ease up on the crescendo....good." No it is merely the desire to produce that abstractly undefinable perfect version that inspires him to pause here, and then accelerate there, and then in a moment of improvisation slow down there.


----------



## Heck148

Woodduck said:


> ....There is no "true" mental image of a musical work that "we" are trying to reach. Every conductor is trying to get an orchestra to play music the way he wants it to sound. That's it. Period. Talk of some abstract "truth" is irrelevant and is responsible for much of the confusion, strawmanning and animosity in these discussions.


Yes, thank you, but rest assured, BH cannot accept this reality.

instead, we get:
BH: "His point was that truth exists only in the abstract, and we are all just trying to reach it."

reach what??


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux, Mravinsky are easily the equals, or superiors to any of those others in terms of artistic, powerfully expressive interpretation. They are not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage....


Mravinsky said the following:

"A human being is infinitely multi-layered. Every person contains within himself the history of mankind. Everything is here. In every piece of music, there's one predominant layer. And so you find within yourself the sphere that matches the music."

This is your notion of "not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage"? Is this not more metaphysical and profound than what BH said, in a related fashion?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Mravinsky said the following:
> 
> "A human being is infinitely multi-layered. Every person contains within himself the history of mankind. Everything is here. In every piece of music, there's one predominant layer. And so you find within yourself the sphere that matches the music."
> 
> This is your notion of "not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage"? Is this not more metaphysical and profound than what BH said, in a related fashion?


Don't ask questions that will make his head hurt.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The adults are talking. Find a thread more your level to go play in.


Right, some adults are talking. you are babbling the same discredited nonsense.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's the essence of dialectics in my view, which is progress because we are constantly clarifying and reconciling, I hope. I am saddened that you do not seem to share this view.
> 
> A thing does not have a choice to be one or to be another. But an interpretation is a set of choices dictated by achieving a certain objective. Call it whatever you wish, but to have the consistency of the choices is to hold such objective absolute (during the performance).


An absolute is a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things. An "absolute" relative to a particular work or performance does not warrant the term. You're talking merely about a presupposition or condition accepted in a particular context for a particular purpose.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> An absolute is a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things. An "absolute" relative to a particular work or performance does not warrant the term. You're talking merely about a presupposition or condition accepted in a particular context for a particular purpose.


Yes, exactly, that's why I qualified my statement "in this sense", not to be confused with a universal principle across time and space. The point I am making is that out of context quote may be suggesting something more pragmatic in nature, rather than something to be taken to be universal (which is what you have done) in the broadest sense. Both of which are speculations. And I would place my bet on the less extreme interpretation because I don't hear that in their recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Right, some adults are talking. you are babbling the same discredited nonsense.


Someone else alluded to this earlier: Why are you so insecure?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Putting aside your definition of ideas beyond the mere notes...what do you mean by encumbered? How exactly do the performances of these conductors become "encumbered?" What's an example?


the portentous attempt to apprehend some imaginary musical "truth", which you cannot even define, or establish as existent would be an encumbrance.
Furtwangler's abrupt stretching or distorting the tempo when there is no such indication in the score, or in the music itself as it is being played could be an example.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and I don't understand why it is so hard to understand what I am saying.
> 
> Think of a prophet or priest-like person speaking extemporaneously. They may have no idea what they are going to say. But in that moment of Zen, the truth appears before them as they start speaking. They are aiming for truth, and nuggets of truth pour out of them.
> 
> It is no different from a conductor like Furtwangler experiencing the music anew as he is conducting it, experiencing the "truth" of it anew. He is inspired in that moment by the search for truth. It is the abstract idea of it that inspires his actions. It is not a concrete form, like a ghost form of a wizard instructing him, "Okay, Wilhelm, now ease up on the crescendo....good." No it is merely the desire to produce that abstractly undefinable perfect version that inspires him to pause here, and then accelerate there, and then in a moment of improvisation slow down there.


So "truth" is now defined as what comes into a musician's head when he's improvising rather than pursuing a preconceived plan? This is new. You haven't explained it this way before. OK, but then what do you mean when you say that truth is something he aims for but doesn't attain? That implies, not an openness to inspiration, which he most certainly can attain, but a particular result.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is no different from a conductor like Furtwangler experiencing the music anew as he is conducting it, experiencing the "truth" of it anew. He is inspired in that moment by the search for truth. It is the abstract idea of it that inspires his actions. It is not a concrete form, like a ghost form of a wizard instructing him, "Okay, Wilhelm, now ease up on the crescendo....good." No it is merely the desire to _produce that abstractly undefinable perfect version_ that inspires him to pause here, and then accelerate there, and then in a moment of improvisation slow down there.


Oh, brother....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> the portentous attempt to apprehend some imaginary musical "truth", which you cannot even define, or establish as existent would be an encumbrance.
> Furtwangler's abrupt stretching or distorting the tempo when there is no such indication in the score, or in the music itself as it is being played could be an example.


But why do so many people find his stretching of the tempo to be perfectly natural and logical? Doesn't that indicate he was on to something as opposed to merely making random effects?


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes, exactly, that's why I qualified my statement "in this sense", not to be confused with a universal principle across time and space. The point I am making is that out of context quote may be suggesting something more pragmatic in nature, rather than something to be taken to be universal (which is what you have done) in the broadest sense. Both of which are speculations. And I would place my bet on the less extreme interpretation because I don't hear that in their recordings.


I call foul on attempts to redefine words by adding qualifiers such as "in this sense." I originally used the word "absolute" in its exact sense, and you want to disagree with me using your new, qualified sense. That isn't valid argumentation.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Mravinsky said the following:
> 
> "A human being is infinitely multi-layered. Every person contains within himself the history of mankind. Everything is here. In every piece of music, there's one predominant layer. And so you find within yourself the sphere that matches the music."
> This is your notion of "not encumbered by non-musical, imaginary philosophical baggage"? Is this not more metaphysical and profound than what BH said, in a related fashion?


I don't see anything there that posits any abstract or absolute "truth". Look in the score, and do what it says. Discover the music the composer wrote....Mravinsky is pretty loyal to the score....expressive, yes....so are Toscanini and Reiner....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> So "truth" is now defined as what comes into a musician's head when he's improvising rather than pursuing a preconceived plan? This is new. You haven't explained it this way before. OK, but then what do you mean when you say that truth is something he aims for but doesn't attain? That implies, not an openness to inspiration, which he most certainly can attain, but a particular result.


It's just a fancy way of saying no interpretation is ever perfect


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Someone else alluded to this earlier: Why are you so insecure?


I'm totally secure. you are the one futilely babbling the same discredited spiel for what?? 2000 posts??
get a life, man...


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But why do so many people find his stretching of the tempo to be perfectly natural and logical?


A huge number of conductors and musicians DO NOT find it perfectly natural and logical - that's why the Toscanini approach has dominated the musical scene so decisively and indisputably.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> the portentous attempt to apprehend some imaginary musical "truth", which you cannot even define.


So did a bunch of pre 21st-century "Baloneys"

"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words." - Victor Hugo

"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley

"Music is the movement of sound to reach soul for the education of its virtue." - Plato

"Where words fail, music speaks" - Hans Christian Andersen

"Music is the harmonious voice of creation; an echo of the invisible world." - Mazzini

"Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is" - Schopenhauer

"True dionysiac music is just such a general mirror of the universal will." - Nietzche

Of course, what do they know about music, they don't even have recordings back then.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's just a fancy way of saying no interpretation is ever perfect


How do we know that? By what standard?


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> So did a bunch of pre 21st-century "Baloneys"
> 
> "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words." - Victor Hugo
> 
> "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley
> 
> "Music is the movement of sound to reach soul for the education of its virtue." - Plato
> 
> "Where words fail, music speaks" - Hans Christian Andersen
> 
> "Music is the harmonious voice of creation; an echo of the invisible world." - Mazzini
> 
> "Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is" - Schopenhauer
> 
> "True dionysiac music is just such a general mirror of the universal will." - Nietzche
> 
> Of course, what do they know about music, they don't even have recordings back then.


What has this to do with anything??


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I call foul on attempts to redefine words by adding qualifiers such as "in this sense." I originally used the word "absolute" in its exact sense, and you want to disagree with me using your new, qualified sense. That isn't valid argumentation.


I was not challenging your use of the word "absolutism" per se. I was not directly countering your argument either. I am simply showing that what you abstracted from the quote, your interpretation is not the only one. I proposed a version of "qualified absolutism" (which I have defined clearly, and you can call it whatever you want) that's equally compatible with the quotes, that is also more reasonable, and more compatible with BH is saying. There is nothing invalid about this argument.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> How do we know that? By what standard?


Exactly. Either the truth can be defined, and you know a performance hasn't quite reached it, or it can't, in which case you logically cannot know a performance hasn't quite reached it.

Woodduck, attempting to get a logically consistent position from BH on this is like trying to find your a-r-s-e with your tounge. Believe me. I've tried (both).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Heck148 said:


> What has this to do with anything??


What BH is saying is perfectly consistent with understanding of music throughout history as presenting some "truth", or "will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined".

This is such an old idea to the point of banality I am not sure why people find it "unacceptable". It's not difficult to understand or am I crazy? Does the details of how BH define such things really that interesting to you all?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> A huge number of conductors and musicians DO NOT find it perfectly natural and logical - that's why the Toscanini approach has dominated the musical scene so decisively and indisputably.


Um, okay, but there is nothing necessarily divisive about playing in a more or less strict tempo. I could see why many people are happy with that.

But it does not make logical sense that if what Furtwängler engaged in was random stretching of the tempo based on imaginary inspirations, why would so many people, including myself, find what he did to be perfectly natural, sensible, and logical? Your explanation of what he did does not make sense of his mass appeal.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What BH is saying is perfectly consistent with understanding of music throughout history as presenting some "truth", or "will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined".
> 
> This is such an old idea to the point of banality I am not sure why people find it "unacceptable".


Because it's wrong. People care about the truth, last time I checked with human nature.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> So did a bunch of pre 21st-century "Baloneys"
> 
> "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words." - Victor Hugo
> 
> "After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music." - Aldous Huxley
> 
> "Music is the movement of sound to reach soul for the education of its virtue." - Plato
> 
> "Where words fail, music speaks" - Hans Christian Andersen
> 
> "Music is the harmonious voice of creation; an echo of the invisible world." - Mazzini
> 
> "Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is" - Schopenhauer
> 
> "True dionysiac music is just such a general mirror of the universal will." - Nietzche
> 
> Of course, what do they know about music, they don't even have recordings back then.


The fact that music can describe something which words cannot, doesn't mean this something is immediately an inherent truth in music. Everything music expresses isn't "truth", the same way as everything words express isn't either. I'd also be veeery careful with quoting the philosophers. Music had its own role in Schopenhauerian aesthetics.

To quote Schopenhauer:

_it does not express this or that individual or particular joy, this or that sorrow or pain or horror or exaltation or cheerfulness or peace of mind, but rather joy, sorrow, pain, horror, exaltation, cheerfulness and peace of mind as such in themselves, abstractly…, (WWR I, 289)_

Schopenhauer seems to view music as an expression of the will, but this he didn't, as far as I know, claim to be a truth in the sense it's been argued here. He seemed to see it as an expression of the truth of the world as a powerful representation of the world. Nietzsche's view of music is thought to be connected with Schopenhauer's.

I don't wish to dwell on this topic further, but I would be very careful myself with quoting such people outside the context of their philosophy.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> But it does not make logical sense that if what Furtwängler engaged in was random stretching of the tempo based on imaginary inspirations, why would so many people, including myself, find what he did to be perfectly natural, sensible, and logical? Your explanation of what he did does not make sense of his mass appeal.


EMINEM HAS MASS APPEAL! Heck, many people even gain pleasure from involving human waste in their sexual liasons.

What on earth is your point, appealing to 'mass appeal'?

Why on earth do you assume something having 'mass appeal' involves something more than intersubjective preferences, which are no more nor less arbitrary than the nervous systems (a product of nature and nurture) of this intersubjective group??


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What BH is saying is perfectly consistent with understanding of music throughout history as presenting some "truth", or "will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined".
> 
> This is such an old idea to the point of banality I am not sure why people find it "unacceptable". It's not difficult to understand or am I crazy? Does the details of how BH define such things really that interesting to you all?


It can express ""will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined"", but why should one consider something that cannot be put into words to be truth? Truth is something very different from human spirit. You seem to be talking about truth in its metaphorical meaning.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> *What BH is saying is perfectly consistent with understanding of music throughout history as presenting some "truth", or "will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined". *
> 
> This is such an old idea to the point of banality I am not sure why people find it "unacceptable". It's not difficult to understand or am I crazy? Does the details of how BH define such things really that interesting to you all?


That is NOT what BH has been calling "truth." His explanation came, at long last, in post #621.

(Assuming, of course, that his concept is consistent, of which I am still not convinced.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Because it's wrong. People care about the truth, last time I checked with human nature.


Do you really want to talk about truth all over again? Do you have the stomach for truth? Are you aware of how hard this problem is?

Look, gents, I honestly don't understand why you have to back BH into a corner to squeeze some "truth" out of him or make him admit that he is a "fool", which he clearly is not. No one's argument can withstand this kind of relentless questioning, scrutiny, and "torture". I hardly see the willingness to reconciliation or to de-escalate.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> That is NOT what BH has been calling "truth." His explanation came, at long last, in post #621.
> 
> (Assuming, of course, that his concept is consistent, of which I am still not convinced.)


His definition is of course a bit all over the place, because we are not in a Philosophy seminar, and everyone has been taking turns to question him ad nausea for weeks.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Do you really want to talk about truth all over again? Do you have the stomach for truth? Are you aware of how hard this problem is?
> 
> Look, gents, I honestly don't understand why you have to back BH into a corner to squeeze some "truth" out of him or make him admit that he is a "fool", which he clearly is not. No one's argument can withstand this kind of relentless questioning, scrutiny, and "torture". I hardly see the willingness to reconciliation or to de-escalate.


Trying to understand another person and disagreeing with him isn't torturing. I think Woodduck doesn't wish to torture anyone either. At least it's not meant that way and I've refrained from making any personal comments. I haven't called BH a fool, nor do I think so. We're just trying to have a normal discussion . A bit opinionated? Yes. But not some torturous discussion.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Do you really want to talk about truth all over again? Do you have the stomach for truth? Are you aware of how hard this problem is?


Are you Tom Cruise?! What on earth are you talking about.

Are you meaning to say that no one is allowed to label something obviously wrong as 'wrong', because philosophers can't agree on a precise definition of 'truth'?!


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> His definition is of course a bit all over the place, because we are not in a Philosophy seminar, and everyone has been taking turns to question him ad nausea for weeks.


Because he's been proffering vagueness for weeks!

You make it seem like we are breaking into his house, forcing him to asnwer our questions under threat of personal injury or something! Take it easy, mate!

What is really going on is that BH is all too keen to offer his thoughts, and we are all too keen to offer ours. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Are you Tom Cruise?! What on earth are you talking about.
> 
> Are you meaning to say that no one is allowed to label something obviously wrong as 'wrong', because philosophers can't agree on a precise definition of 'truth'?!


I still remember "you were too busy" twice and accused me of "being too complicated" when we just about to get to the serious business about the basic idea of "truth", which you seem so sure of.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Do you really want to talk about truth all over again? Do you have the stomach for truth? Are you aware of how hard this problem is?
> 
> Look, gents, I honestly don't understand why you have to back BH into a corner to squeeze some "truth" out of him or make him admit that he is a "fool", which he clearly is not. No one's argument can withstand this kind of relentless questioning, scrutiny, and "torture". I hardly see the willingness to reconciliation or to de-escalate.


People are often not as clear and precise as they think they are, and if they want to express views and then find themselves misunderstood they can expect that others will try to get them to explain and clarify. I won't speak for anyone else here, but my desire has been to try for an accurate understanding of musical meaning and musical interpretation, and to avoid fallacious or fanciful ideas, whether propagated by us or by the conductors themselves. I have nothing against Brahmsianhorn, and I actually feel about Furtwangler's work much as he does, though my enthusiasm is a bit more qualified and my acquaintance with the recordings less extensive. I have, however, not found it easy to get out of him a clear concept of "truth" as he defines it. Maybe post #621 lays it out clearly enough, but maybe not...


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I still remember "you were too busy" twice and accused me of "being too complicated" when we just about to get to the serious business about the basic idea of "truth", which you seem so sure of.


Formiddable!

You really are saying that I can't call out untruth simply because philosophers still(!) get paid to debate about the nature of truth????!

:lol::lol::lol:

Teacher: 'Billy what is 2+2?'

Billy: '3 miss'!

Teacher: 'WRONG, Billy. You should know BETTER!'

Billy: 'But miss, you can't say that cause my daddy UniversalTruingMachine says truth is complicated!'


----------



## Guest

I see things have moved on a few pages since I made the mistake of going to bed.

Did I miss any progress?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I see things have moved on a few pages since I made the mistake of going to bed.
> 
> Did I miss any progress?


I will soon be making the same mistake. I tremble to think of what morning will bring.


----------



## RogerWaters

Yes, goodbye all, for now. 

It has been a wild ride!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> People are often not as clear and precise as they think they are, and if they want to express views and then find themselves misunderstood they can expect that others will try to get them to explain and clarify. I won't speak for anyone else here, but my desire has been to try for an accurate understanding of musical meaning and musical interpretation, and to avoid fallacious or fanciful ideas, whether propagated by us or by the conductors themselves. I have nothing against Brahmsianhorn, and I actually feel about Furtwangler's work much as he does, though my enthusiasm is a bit more qualified and my acquaintance with the recordings less extensive. I have, however, not found it easy to get out of him a clear concept of "truth" as he defines it. Maybe post #621 lays it out clearly enough, but maybe not...


I am sure you all have good intentions and I understand where you are coming from. But the power dynamic here looks very skewed to the verge of being abusive. I come from a profession that's cutthroat about every tiny little detail of an argument, but even in the most hostile seminar, people usually don't talk like this, it's about trying to understand the other as best as one can or help the other to fix the flaw in their argument. Music appreciation is not scientific investigation and some of the demands here are asking for far too much in my view for a forum discussion about an already complicated idea and sprinkled with a daily dose of insults.

Of course, you are all entitled to question BH for his position and I am sure BH will be as tenacious and patient as ever. Maybe I am getting a bit sentimental here but I feel obliged to voice my concerns about how this discussion is going.


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> It can express ""will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined"", but why should one consider something that cannot be put into words to be truth? Truth is something very different from human spirit. You seem to be talking about truth in its metaphorical meaning.


Indeed. I thought it was striking that the quotes provided (whose relevance I did not really see) did not use the words "true" or "truth" even once.

The funniest one was the Huxley one, which ranked two things in their closeness to expressing the inexpressible. Number 2 was music, but topping it as best was ...... silence!

Let's rerun this whole thread taking about the ultimate truth of silence. John Cage would be gratified.

Of course, silence is only an ideal to be aimed for, absolute silence is not attainable. I find that in my performances playing more and more quietly tends to bring me closer to the absolute ideal of silence. For you it might be different.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Formiddable!
> 
> You really are saying that I can't call out untruth simply because philosophers still(!) get paid to debate about the nature of truth????!
> 
> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Teacher: 'Billy what is 2+2?'
> 
> Billy: '3 miss'!
> 
> Teacher: 'WRONG, Billy. You should know BETTER!'
> 
> Billy: 'But miss, you can't say that cause my daddy UniversalTruingMachine says truth is complicated!'


You don't seem to be good at trolling. That's such a disappointing attempt.

It seems that you don't understand that mathematical truth is different from the "truth" BH is alluding to. You have shot yourself in the foot because you cannot tell whether the notion of BH's "truth" exists or not using mathematics. So the existence of BH's "truth" is neither true or false. You cannot conclude that he is wrong.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. I thought it was striking that the quotes provided (whose relevance I did not really see) did not use the words "true" or "truth" even once.


That's why it's complicated. Because "truth" is closely related to "being" or "existence". This problem dated all the way back to Plato. Plato was aware of the fact that if the concepts in the statement do not exist then the statement cannot be true. Before you can talk about mathematic objects that are not primitive, you first need existence, all of mathematics can be seen as useful tautologies of presupposed existences.

All of these quotes are pointing out that music corresponds to certain "existence", "invisible world", "will", "spirit". These are "being" which is equivalent to "truth" in some sense. Because I can form a true statement about the "invisible world exists", the existence itself provides the statement's truth value, which makes it a true proposition (or a true idea, ie, truth).



Eclectic Al said:


> The funniest one was the Huxley one, which ranked two things in their closeness to expressing the inexpressible. Number 2 was music, but topping it as best was ...... silence!


Silence is a part of music. Many great works have powerful use of fermata and rests.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> All of these quotes are pointing out that music corresponding to certain "existence", "invisible world", "will", "spirit", these are "being" which is equivalent to "truth" in some sense.


Sorry. Your grammar/syntax lost me here. Your dependent clause is missing something.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Sorry. Your grammar/syntax lost me here. Your dependent clause is missing something.


Forgive me for my poor grasp of English, I have fixed it.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> All of these quotes are pointing out that music corresponding to certain "existence", "invisible world", "will", "spirit", these are "being" which is equivalent to "truth" in some sense. Because I can form a true statement about the "invisible world exists", the existence itself provides the statement's truth value, which makes it a true proposition (or a true idea, ie, truth).


But why is something that needs to be explained has to be so abstract? As I wrote above in answer to your quote-post, Schopenhauer _himself_ saw it as an abstract representation of emotions, human nature and, in the sense, the exterior world. I feel he saw music as a way to experience emotions without actually experiencing them in any real-life situation. That's why he saw music as the greatest of arts. While music can explain things which are not explainable through using words, I don't think this was what BH means... or is it?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> But why is something that needs to be explained has to be so abstract? As I wrote above in answer to your quote-post, Schopenhauer _himself_ saw it as an abstract representation of emotions, human nature and, in the sense, the exterior world. I feel he saw music as a way to experience emotions without actually experiencing them in any real-life situation. That's why he saw music as the greatest of arts. While music can explain thing which are not explainable through using words, I don't think this was what BH means... or is it?


Look, I think what BH meant was quite simple but also clearly related this past Platonic idea (which is not ridiculous at all). But there are so many people questioning him, looking for error with a magnifying glass, it becomes impossible for him to give a satisfactory answer, as if he has the sole responsibility to prove for certain such idea works, which has never been successful. Schopenhauer wrote long passages developing this idea of music as the will as the thing itself from Kant. I not sure people buy that or want to read into it.

I wrote my version of it, which is based partly on neuroscience and information theory. But I don't think people really want to read that, let's face it, people are not here for a genuine discussion of "truth", they just want a good time taking a jab at a BH's position, which many vocally decalred ridiculous.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> which many vocally decalred ridiculous.


I didn't see 'many', but yes, some. More important is surely to focus on those who aren't 'declaring ridiculous' and try to engage with them and their queries. Yesterday, I asked a straightforward question and offered what I thought was measured challenge. What I got in return was less than encouraging, from you both.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> I didn't see 'many', but yes, some. More important is surely to focus on those who aren't 'declaring ridiculous' and try to engage with them and their queries. Yesterday, I asked a straightforward question and offered what I thought was measured challenge. What I got in return was less than encouraging, from you both.


Of course, I apologize for disappointing you for whatever that I had done.

First of all, I don't think I am up for the Herculian challenge (because I don't think it's possible). I am certainly not up for any tribalism. I find the situation perverse, to be frank. All I want to say is BH's idea does not deserve such scrutiny. It's a variation of an old idea, a powerful one, but one that's very difficult to tackle, especially on a classical music forum.

As for engagement, I am sure you have the best intention, but the power dynamic is skewed, I have not seen much willingness for concession, or at least trying to understand what BH is saying, or recognizing the fact he is backed to a corner.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> saw it as an abstract representation of emotions, human nature and, in the sense, the exterior world. I feel he saw music as a way to experience emotions without actually experiencing them in any real-life situation.


Not exterior world, but the "inner nature", quote

"But that generally a relation between a composition and perceptive expression is possible is due, as we have said, to the fact that the two are simply quite different expressions of the same INNER NATURE of the world."

"But the analogy discovered by the composer between these two must have come from the immediate knowledge of the INNER NATURE of the world unknown to his faculty of reason."

The second quote is actually pretty close to neurological evidence that music experience is mostly the information processing of the auditory cortex in the right brain, which has nothing to do with the clump of neurons or pathways that are in charge of the faculty of reason.


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> But why is something that needs to be explained has to be so abstract? As I wrote above in answer to your quote-post, Schopenhauer _himself_ saw it as an abstract representation of emotions, human nature and, in the sense, the exterior world. I feel he saw music as a way to experience emotions without actually experiencing them in any real-life situation. That's why he saw music as the greatest of arts. While music can explain things which are not explainable through using words, I don't think this was what BH means... or is it?


Crumbs, quoting Schopenhauer, during a time of national pandemic! Cheering us up? But I have news! Schopenhauer played his flute every evening after dinner - leading his fellow-countryman Friedrich Nietzsche to conclude that Schopenhauer was not really the ultimate pessimist everyone thought he was. Schopenhauer owned flute transcriptions of all of Rossini's operas, so we can imagine the old miserabilist enthusiastically tootling his way through the William Tell Overture or Figaro's opening aria from The Barber of Seville. William Hendel asks, perhaps unfairly, about Schopenhauer: "Are those august ivory sideburns not suddenly and irredeemably ridiculous when seen astride a flute?" But Toscanini would have no doubt approved!


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> *Crumbs, quoting Schopenhauer, during a time of national pandemic! Cheering us up?* But I have news! Schopenhauer played his flute every evening after dinner - leading his fellow-countryman Friedrich Nietzsche to conclude that Schopenhauer was not really the ultimate pessimist everyone thought he was. Schopenhauer owned flute transcriptions of all of Rossini's operas, so we can imagine the old miserabilist enthusiastically tootling his way through the William Tell Overture or Figaro's opening aria from The Barber of Seville. William Hendel asks, perhaps unfairly, about Schopenhauer: "Are those august ivory sideburns not suddenly and irredeemably ridiculous when seen astride a flute?" But Toscanini would have no doubt approved!


Totally, bringing joy and sheer optimism to your day :lol: !

I find the mental image of Schopenhauer playing flute somewhat... disturbing.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Not exterior world, but the "inner nature", quote
> 
> "But that generally a relation between a composition and perceptive expression is possible is due, as we have said, to the fact that the two are simply quite different expressions of the same INNER NATURE of the world."
> 
> "But the analogy discovered by the composer between these two must have come from the immediate knowledge of the INNER NATURE of the world unknown to his faculty of reason."
> 
> The second quote is actually pretty close to neurological evidence that music experience is mostly the information processing of the auditory cortex in the right brain, which has nothing to do with the clump of neurons or pathways that are in charge of the faculty of reason.


Pardon, I wasn't being clear enough. I think the inner nature of the world is still exterior from individual's viewpoint. If I explain the inner nature of the world through a composition (which I'm sadly not able to do), I'm explaining something that's exterior for me but inner for nature. That's how I see it at least. Composers can also describe their or human's inner nature. But let's not dwell on this further, I'm afraid we'd end up with Wittgenstein & Co. otherwise, although it's a very interesting discussion topic! It's a whole new topic if this inner nature of the world is what BH has had in mind when talking about "truth", but I have an impression it's not.

It has been said that Schopenhauer thought music can express metaphysical truth better than classical philosophy, but whether that's relevant to our current discussion is questionable as I think what Schopenhauer had in mind is different from what BH sees as "truth". Also, I know far to little about Schopenhauer's philosophy and its more profound aspects, to argue about that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> It has been a wild ride!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> Pardon, I wasn't being clear enough. I think the inner nature of the world is still exterior from individual's viewpoint. If I explain the inner nature of the world through a composition (which I'm sadly not able to do), I'm explaining something that's exterior for me but inner for nature. That's how I see it at least. Composers can also describe their or human's inner nature. But let's not dwell on this further, I'm afraid we'd end up with Wittgenstein & Co. otherwise, although it's a very interesting discussion topic! It's a whole new topic if this inner nature of the world is what BH has had in mind when talking about "truth", but I have an impression it's not.


Schopenhauer argues that music experience is the will itself, not the representation of the will, which is the physical world and causalities (a representation of will in his view, and phenomenon of things themselves in Kant). The will is the fundamental reality, the "truth" which the intellect is a slave to. There is a modern interpretation of this I won't go into details (will as increasing in entropy of a computational universe).

Wagner's music can be seen as the purest form of the will (not the text or actors or stages), the Tristan chords and the harmonic progressions mirror the longing, the suffering, the death drive and etc. Furtwangler was clearly influenced by this in his approach to interpretation, as he tried to embody the "will" (not intentions) of the composers (from what I remembered from reading). This "will" (is related to the unconscious) by definition is outside the rational intellect (which is scientifically close to be true after studying the brain) so what BH said is not far off in this interpretation.

The spiritual interpretation was also not far off as I quoted before. Furtwangler's idea of sensualizing the spiritual is a continuation of Beethoven's idea of music as a mediator between the spiritual domain and the sensual. The idea of the "spirit" also has a rich history (also related to truth - the Platonic ideal world of beings) and can be interpreted in terms of 21th-century science as well.

There are so many ways to interpret BH's idea (even if he has trouble clarifying, which is expected) and connect the dots, in my view, I tend to think this is a lack of understanding rather than him being "slippery" because he is talking about a difficult topic (which means you need to use heuristics rather than logic, which is kind of the point). Even if people accuse him of being metaphysical, you cannot prove him wrong, because to be metaphysical is to talk about things that cannot be proven right or wrong. It's OK to be metaphysical, we are all metaphysical we are just not aware of how metaphysical we are.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK. So my "will" is what I prefer.

Happy with that


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Schopenhauer argues that music experience is the will itself, not the representation of the will, which is the physical world and causalities (a representation of will in his view, and phenomenon of things themselves in Kant). The will is the fundamental reality, the "truth" which the intellect is a slave to. There is a modern interpretation of this I won't go into details (will as increasing in entropy of a computational universe).
> 
> Wagner's music can be seen as the purest form of the will (not the text or actors or stages), the Tristan chords and the harmonic progressions mirror the longing, the suffering, the death drive and etc. Furtwangler was clearly influenced by this in his approach to interpretation, as he tried to embody the "will" (not intentions) of the composers (from what I remembered from reading). This "will" (is related to the unconscious) by definition is outside the rational intellect (which is scientifically close to be true after studying the brain) so what BH said is not far off in this interpretation.
> 
> The spiritual interpretation was also not far off as I quoted before. Furtwangler's idea of sensualizing the spiritual is a continuation of Beethoven's idea of music as a mediator between the spiritual domain and the sensual. The idea of the "spirit" also has a rich history (also related to truth - the Platonic ideal world of beings) and can be interpreted in terms of 21th-century science as well.
> 
> There are so many ways to interpret BH's idea (even if he has trouble clarifying, which is expected) and connect the dots, in my view, I tend to think this is a lack of understanding rather than him being "slippery" because he is talking about a difficult topic (which means you need to use heuristics rather than logic, which is kind of the point). Even if people accuse him of being metaphysical, you cannot prove him wrong, because to be metaphysical is to talk about things that cannot be proven right or wrong. It's OK to be metaphysical, we are all metaphysical we are just not aware of how metaphysical we are.


Thanks for the insightful post! I think you are right about Wagner, he indeed seemed to be inspired by Schopenhauer's philosophy and the expressiveness of his music shows it well. In fact, Schopenhauer also didn't see it as the Will but rather as a copy of it.

"_Music is as direct an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself, nay, even as the Ideas, whose multiplied manifestation constitutes the world of individual things. Music is thus by no means like the other arts, the copy of the Ideas, but the copy of the will itself, whose objectivity the Ideas are._"

and

"_Yet I recognise the fact that it is essentially impossible to prove this explanation, for it assumes and establishes a relation of music, as idea, to that which from its nature can never be idea, and music will have to be regarded as the copy of an original which can never itself be directly presented as idea. I can therefore do no more than state here, at the conclusion of this third book, which has been principally devoted to the consideration of the arts, the explanation of the marvellous art of music which satisfies myself, and I must leave the acceptance or denial of my view to the effect produced upon each of my readers both by music itself and by the whole system of thought communicated in this work._" - The World As Will And Idea (Vol. 1)

Schopenhauer himself presented the whole thing as something unprovable.

I still think this isn't relevant in the context of this discussion. I cannot imagine how Furtwängler's conducting was different from Toscanini's when it comes to presenting what the music itself conveys. However, it would be relevant if we decided to forget about the argument about whether there is a "true" rendition all conductors pursue. I doubt this was exactly what Schopenhauer meant - his philosophy had more to do with the qualities of music itself but again, I haven't read any of his works thoroughly and thus feel a bit uncomfortable drawing any conclusions.

Schopenhauer doesn't say in those quotes that a single piece of music presents some specific thing that must be looked for. He talks about the general quality of music. For Schopenhauer, the music was a copy of the Will no matter if Toscanini or Furtwängler conducted and interpreted it. That's how I understand it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Some people seem stuck on the idea of “A is true, B is false” dichotomy. Just because one thing is true doesn’t always necessitate a falsehood. A tree existing can represent truth. There is no accompanying falsehood. An interpretation of a classical work can be “true” without making another dissimilar interpretation “false.” 

Heck could not answer my question because it backed him into a corner. He doesn’t like what Furtwängler did with tempo fluctuation, fine. But he cannot answer the question of why these fluctuations ring “true” with so many people, including myself. Because for Heck there is only ONE OBJECTIVE true way to perform a work, and what Furtwängler does is DEVIATE from that one objective way.

My contention, and maybe this will help clear things up for people, is that truth is in the eye of the beholder. There is something Furtwängler was doing that rings true for many people, and Heck cannot handle that way of looking at it. Heck’s thesis is “my way is the right way,” not merely that there are different ways that can represent truth. 

For Heck, there is one way: the score. And it just happens that the conductors who “follow” the score are his favorites, Toscanini and Reiner. And the conductors who don’t follow the score are the ones deviating and “adding” things.

My contention is no, Heck, you are wrong. The subjectivists are following a path that rings true for them, that sounds natural, and can even, YES, be broken down scientifically.

So the entire Toscanini thesis, which Heck endorses, of superiority is flawed. Toscanini/Reiner simply play works in ways they and their fans subjectively see as valid. But they are NOT objectively more valid than the way Furtwängler and his fans see as valid. Heck’s belief that the Toscanini school “won” is BS. He will always have his fans, and yet there will always be other ways of looking at it. Other EQUALLY VALID ways of looking at it.

In short, truth being represented by the score and only the score is a false premise. It is demonstrably false.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Some people seem stuck on the idea of "A is true, B is false" dichotomy. Just because one thing is true doesn't always necessitate a falsehood. A tree existing can represent truth. There is no accompanying falsehood. An interpretation of a classical work can be "true" without making another dissimilar interpretation "false."


But what would make an interpretation false?



> My contention, and maybe this will help clear things up for people, is that truth is in the eye of the beholder. There is something Furtwängler was doing that rings true for many people, and Heck cannot handle that way of looking at it.


How can truth be in the eye of beholder? 2+2=4 <- this is true and I hope it's true for everyone. The fact that I think that 2+2=3 is true (I don't) wouldn't make it any truer. When you say that Furtwängler's conducting carries in itself a certain amount of truth, then this isn't something subjective unless we talk about personal subjective truths.



> The subjectivists are following a path that rings true for them, that sounds natural, and can even, YES, be broken down scientifically.


What have I missed? How exactly is it broken down scientifically?



> In short, truth being represented by the score and only the score is a false premise. It is demonstrably false.


Do you claim that the score doesn't present _any_ truth? You seem to claim this and this is... I mean, there wouldn't be anything to play, despite Cage's 4'33'', if the score doesn't present any truth about a piece of music. How do you demonstrate it's false? You know, even Schopenhauer admitted that his theory, which he seemed to be fairly convinced about, is unprovable.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Some people seem stuck on the idea of "A is true, B is false" dichotomy. Just because one thing is true doesn't always necessitate a falsehood. A tree existing can represent truth. There is no accompanying falsehood. An interpretation of a classical work can be "true" without making another dissimilar interpretation "false."


If you believe in an objective physical world (and you don't have to, but let us know if you don't) then the statement that a tree exists is readily falsifiable. You are denoting "a tree" somehow: let's say it is by reference to a GPS position, but it could be in whatever fashion you choose which is sufficient to denote that tree. OK, I will go and look for the tree. If I don't find a tree I will conclude that your statement is false. That is the accompanying falsehood: the absence of that particular tree.

I therefore conclude that by saying " a tree existing can represent truth" you must mean something else which is not falsifiable. Could you clarify what you mean?

Thanks


----------



## RogerWaters

Get the spliffs ready, guys! BH is about expand on his philosophy! It’s a wild ride, don’t expect logic nor conventional usage of terms to slow it down!

All aboard!


----------



## annaw

Eclectic Al said:


> If you believe in an objective physical world (and you don't have to, but let us know if you don't) then the statement that a tree exists is readily falsifiable. You are denoting "a tree" somehow: let's say it is by reference to a GPS position, but it could be in whatever fashion you choose which is sufficient to denote that tree. OK, I will go and look for the tree. If I don't find a tree I will conclude that your statement is false. That is the accompanying falsehood: the absence of that particular tree.
> 
> I therefore conclude that by saying " a tree existing can represent truth" you must mean something else which is not falsifiable. Could you clarify what you mean?
> 
> Thanks


How does this work - if I denote a tree and its precise position, how come you cannot find it? (I cannot believe I'm actually writing such an informative post :lol


----------



## Eclectic Al

annaw said:


> How does this work - if I denote a tree and its precise position, how come you cannot find it? (I cannot believe I'm actually writing such an informative post :lol


I was really trying to check what BH meant by saying: "a tree existing can represent truth"

I was wanting to rule out the possibility that he was just referring to an assertion that there is a tree at a GPS position, say. That would be a statement about a fact of the world, and if he meant that then I could go and check if the assertion was true or false about the world. That would clearly be a falsifiable claim. He wouldn't even need to be lying, as he might (for example) be mistaken about whether what he sees is classified as a tree, or if it is not just a large shrub. :lol:.

If he meant something such as that there is a tree which he is denoting, and that he is then noting that it exists, then that may be true, but only because it is a tautology because of the nature of the word exists. (Existence is not a predicate.)

If he means something like there is a tree and it somehow represents (his word) a truth, then I was hoping he could clarify that and its relevance to our discussion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Really, guys. You take things off in obscure tangents. The only point with the tree was that one thing being true doesn't necessitate something else being false. If the tree existing equals truth, there is no necessary corresponding falsehood, like a bush must therefore not exist.

So in others words, 3 + 3 = 6 is a false analogy to this musical discussion, because that presents a true/false dichotomy. The answer can only be 6. All other answers are false.


----------



## Merl

RogerWaters said:


> All aboard!


I jumped ship the minute the F word was mentioned. Another thread of meaningless twaddle to avoid.


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Really, guys. You take things off in obscure tangents. The only point with the tree was that one thing being true doesn't necessitate something else being false. If the tree existing equals truth, there is no necessary corresponding falsehood, like a bush must therefore not exist.
> 
> So in others words, 3 + 3 = 6 is a false analogy to this musical discussion, because that presents a true/false dichotomy. The answer can only be 6. All other answers are false.


You claim there exist multiple truths? I still find it extremely difficult to understand what you mean by truth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The irony of this thread is that Toscanini is actually a poor example of his own philosophy. He was actually very willful and individual.

Let's talk about Reiner (and no I am not going to start a new thread).

Reiner is maybe the closest conductor I can think to someone who literally doesn't say anything. He just plays the music. Haitink and Wand also come to mind.

This matches Heck's aesthetic as stated here, that the music doesn't inherently mean anything, and it is the conductor's job to merely present the score for the audience to make of it what they wish. 

That is HIS truth. Not my truth. Not Allegro con brio's truth. It merely represents A truth to a segment of the listening populace. It is not THE truth.

In my view, Reiner is not telling the story of the work. He is presenting something faceless. So it is an incomplete interpretation. It is not objectively true. It is a half truth. Only the skeleton of the work, not the entire picture. For me and others, Furtwangler fills that gap. He immerses himself into the meaning of the work. He understands the harmonic language, the key relationships, and incorporates this into his interpretation. He tells the full story, not just the bare bones. 

This is MY truth, not THE truth.

The way Heck wants to see it, his way is the objective way, and my way is subjective preference. Baloney. It is ALL subjective variations based on what we each interpret as being true.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Really, guys. You take things off in obscure tangents. The only point with the tree was that one thing being true doesn't necessitate something else being false. If the tree existing equals truth, there is no necessary corresponding falsehood, like a bush must therefore not exist.
> 
> So in others words, 3 + 3 = 6 is a false analogy to this musical discussion, because that presents a true/false dichotomy. The answer can only be 6. All other answers are false.


Can we pursue the tree analogy a bit further, as I think it might be helpful. (I'm not being facetious.)

Suppose someone writes a description of a tree, and it's fairly detailed, so we know that the tree is deciduous, and we know that it is not a fruit tree, but it's not absolutely detailed about everything. I read the description, and think the closest match between the description and its realisation in an actual tree is that it's an oak. Others agree with me, although we have some disagreements about which sub-species it may be. Meanwhile, you think that it is an acer, and there are others in your camp, but some of you think that it is a sycamore, whereas others think it is a maple.

All well and good, we have a specification with some indications, but not enough to be sure about all details, so we have our own views about what is the best match to the specification.

I prefer the idea that it is an oak, and you prefer the idea that it is a sycamore.

What is true? Search me. I don't really know what that would mean. They're both valid.
If you say that the person who wrote the description had the knowledge of truth, so he could tell us whether it is an oak or a sycamore, I would say that we don't know that. Maybe his picture was inherently more generic than that: his description was never intended to be treated as one of a particular specific tree, but was intended to describe some characteristics of trees which we could relate to and which would engender in us some feelings or thoughts about trees. It seems to me that this sort of view is closer to art and music. If his description is poetry then it is inappropriate to treat it like the manual for a construction kit.

Hence, we follow the description and that gives us an idea which relates to trees, but you prefer one interpretation and I prefer another, and there is no truth to any of this. All there is is a description and people with different preferences for the details of how to interpret that description. If you ignore the description completely then it is perverse, but the description does not tell you everything.

I think in this whole long thread the thing that baffles me most is the desire to stick to the word "truth". I hope that pretty much everything else I've written about describing trees is not a problem for you, but I am expecting that you will want to claim that somehow there is a truth in the oak or in the sycamore.

I guess that you think that by trying to avoid the word truth people like me are trying to downplay the importance of the feelings you get from music. That is certainly not what I'm trying to do. I think it is the idea of truth which downplays the importance of feelings, turning the experience into something sterile and objective, whereas I find the importance I feel in music is entirely because of my sense of a personal subjective experience, where I am communing with others (the composer and the performer(s), and even with other listeners), but in a way which is personal to me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> What is true? Search me. I don't really know what that would mean. They're both valid.


Look at my last post for clarification. We're not all that far apart. I have never said there is only one truth. What I have said is that truth exists in the abstract, and we all have our variations on it.

It is no different than saying that there is no such thing as a "correct" religion that invalidates all the others. They are all variations on universal truth.

The tree analogy does not fit, because the tree is a tangible thing. Music is not. My point again with that was just to negate the idea that truth necessitates a true/false dichotomy.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Here's a link to a poem. It's got trees in it!
https://voetica.com/voetica.php?collection=15&poet=771&poem=8653

It very specifically refers to certain species: ash and elder. Elsewhere it talks more generically about conifers.

Does it matter which conifers? Is there a truth about the conifers? Here there might be because it refers to a particular place (Upper Lambourne) and to Edwardian plantations, so maybe you could go find them and check. Would it matter to me as a reader which conifers they are? No. Would it matter to other readers? It might.

Take the ash and elder trees. Did Betjeman have a young or old ash in mind? Probably not too young, as it's got ivy growing up it. How big or old though? The elders are neglected, so that creates an image, but how neglected?

If I was trying to paint a picture to represent this poem I would want to include ash, elder and conifers (as well as ivy etc). I would need to make interpretative decisions about them. Someone else painting it would make their own choices. Which is true? Haven't a clue. I may have a preference though if I looked at the paintings.

Nice poem.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Look at my last post for clarification. We're not all that far apart. I have never said there is only one truth. What I have said is that truth exists in the abstract, and we all have our variations on it.
> 
> It is no different than saying that there is no such thing as a "correct" religion that invalidates all the others. They are all variations on universal truth.
> 
> The tree analogy does not fit, because the tree is a tangible thing. Music is not. My point again with that was just to negate the idea that truth necessitates a true/false dichotomy.


But why the word "truth"? I can't see what it adds, and I can see a lot of problems with using the word.

(Incidentally, a tree is not a tangible thing if we are referring to a poetic description of a hypothetical tree.)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> But why the word "truth"? I can't see what it adds, and I can see a lot of problems with using the word.


Because it is not just random and meaningless. There is a reason Reiner appeals to Heck. There is a reason Furtwangler appeals to me. That reason represents truth.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Because it is not just random and meaningless. There is a reason Reiner appeals to Heck. There is a reason Furtwangler appeals to me. That reason represents truth.


For that to make sense I think you would need to provide a definition of "truth".

I don't mean the particular characteristics which cause you to appreciate a performance as true (or close to true), and Heck to appreciate different performances. I have no problem in understanding that different performances have different characteristics which appeal to a greater or less extent to different people, for a whole range of reasons, but I take it you don't just want to identify truth with personal preference. I mean what I am to take "truth" to mean in your sentence above.

For example:

Truth (noun)
1) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality
2) ???


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> the tree is a tangible thing. Music is not.


No, but it is audible, so readily accessible by our senses.

The difficulty you face in this conversation is that none of use can stay together for a long enough time to resolve anything. We each drop in and and drop out of the discussion and miss what may be crucial revelations or resolutions. Some may be willing to track back over the past 46 pages, and see what has happened in the Furtwangler thread which is germane to this one - rather too complicated a prospect. Still, I'd like to pursue and see if I can make sense...

I followed your post #679 and was happy that I understood it...until the sentence about "the subjectivists", then you lost me; what have they to do with the price of bread?

Then you say,



> Toscanini/Reiner simply play works in ways they and their fans subjectively see as valid. But they are NOT objectively more valid than the way Furtwängler and his fans see as valid.


Yes, happy with that. I understand and agree. I thought that's what most people here already agreed. But then you summarise:



> In short, truth being represented by the score and only the score is a false premise. It is demonstrably false


I don't see the connection between that and the foregoing.


----------



## Heck148

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What BH is saying is perfectly consistent with understanding of music throughout history as presenting some "truth", or "will", or "invisible world", or "soul", or "spirit", that is "inexpressible", "cannot be put into words", "word fail", and "cannot be defined".


No, his concept is unprovable. He cannot even define it, let alone determine if anyone has "apprehended" it.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Um, okay, but there is nothing necessarily divisive about playing in a more or less strict tempo. I could see why many people are happy with that.
> 
> But it does not make logical sense that if what Furtwängler engaged in was random stretching of the tempo based on imaginary inspirations


you cannot even define what this supposed "truth" is, so how can WF's spontaneous stretchings and lurchings amount to capture of this supposed ??truth??


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck could not answer my question because it backed him into a corner.


I've blown every pertinent question of yours out of the H2O.



> He doesn't like what Furtwängler did with tempo fluctuation, fine. But he cannot answer the question of why these fluctuations ring "true" with so many people, including myself.


gawd, you are such a liar...[the obvious haven of those whose arguments have utterly failed]. I have said, over and over, that the listener may attach or apply any concept, ideal, program, scenario to any music he/she chooses. If it enhances the listener's enjoyment, fine, great. If the listener equates that with "truth", fine, but that in no way establishes it as any sort of absolute or universal "truth". I've said this repeatedly. if you enjoy WF's interpretations, with all of his various tempo and ensemble fluctuations - fine - go for it, I've no problem with that. it's when you try to claim that WF's approach is the "true" one, that he is the one who captures this absolute essential "truth" [that you are unable to even define or describe], then you run aground hopelessly. then you further assert that any conductor who doesn't follow WF's path to ultimate musical "truth" is merely a robotic time-beater, "a trained monkey" who merely pounds out metronomic beats. after all these pages of postings - you are still 0 for 3.



> Because for Heck there is only ONE OBJECTIVE true way to perform a work, and what Furtwängler does is DEVIATE from that one objective way.... Heck's thesis is "my way is the right way," not merely that there are different ways that can represent truth.


.
Absolute baloney - you lie thru your teeth most shamelessly. I have NEVER, EVER claimed that there is _one objective _way to perform a work....Almost always, for any given work, I will have 2, 3 or more favorite performances, which may vary considerably in their interpretive approach....as that is indisputably the case, your accusation is flatly refuted for the lie that it is.



> But they are NOT objectively more valid than the way Furtwängler and his fans see as valid.


Not at issue...but I'm not claiming that Toscanini strived to apprehend some fabricated, imaginary essential "truth" over-laying the music. You are, and your theory has been blasted to smithereens. unable to defend it, you resort to lying...



> Heck's belief that the Toscanini school "won" is BS.


it's not a belief, it's a fact....AT's approach is by far the most dominant at present. maybe the "romantic" school will make a comeback, fine.


----------



## Heck148

RogerWaters said:


> Get the spliffs ready, guys! BH is about expand on his philosophy! It's a wild ride, don't expect logic nor conventional usage of terms to slow it down!
> All aboard!


It's unbelievable, isn't it?? :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> you cannot even define what this supposed "truth" is, so how can WF's spontaneous stretchings and lurchings amount to capture of this supposed ??truth??


It is a truth you cannot see, just like I cannot see what you find appealing in bland, literal interpretations that do not say anything about the music


----------



## Enthusiast

Looks like we'll be needing another cake in a week or so. Can someone explain to me what value or pleasure participants in threads like this (either side) get out of the endeavour. It seems to go around and around with slurs and insults added to spice it up.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> it's when you try to claim that WF's approach is the "true" one, that he is the one who captures this absolute essential "truth" [that you are unable to even define or describe], then you run aground hopelessly. then you further assert that any conductor who doesn't follow WF's path to ultimate musical "truth" is merely a robotic time-beater, "a trained monkey" who merely pounds out metronomic beats. after all these pages of postings - you are still 0 for 3.


 I have never said that WF represents the one path to truth. Stop putting words in my mouth to try and artificially delegitimize my opinions.

Not everyone likes Reiner and Toscanini.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Reiner is maybe the closest conductor I can think to someone who literally doesn't say anything. He just plays the music.


And does a magnificent job of it!! I'm so pleased that I have caused you a sleepless night, and that you've hit the forum in full cry!! :devil:


> This matches Heck's aesthetic as stated here, that the music doesn't inherently mean anything, and it is the conductor's job to merely present the score for the audience to make of it what they wish.


Gawd, you are such a liar. I never said that music doesn't "mean anything". I've said that this idea that all music has some over-laying, imaginary, absolute "truth, or cosmic meaning is unprovable, and unnecessary ...obviously, the score is going to indicate flow, drama, direction, expression - all of those things which appeal to the listener. and yes, Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux were amazingly successful at this. they did not require, or seek to capture some supposed metaphysical ideal or "truth" to achieve that goal....if the listener wishes to apply those things, fine..whatever enhances the listener's enjoyment..but your premise that WF is the only mortal divinely anointed to apprehend such abstract ideal or truth, and all others are nothing but "trained monkeys" is totally absurd, and totally unsupportable.

You prefer Furtwangler...fine, that is YOUR truth....not THE truth....WF's way is his "truth"....not THE truth. [which you cannot even define]


----------



## Eclectic Al

Enthusiast said:


> Looks like we'll be needing another cake in a week or so. Can someone explain to me what value or pleasure participants in threads like this (either side) get out of the endeavour. It seems to go around and around with slurs and insults added to spice it up.


It's sort of addictive. You sometimes feel you're getting somewhere in clarifying terms, but then WHOOSH someone throws fuel onto the flames.

Just observing these threads, though, maybe the way to look at it is as a form of performance art.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is a truth you cannot see,


neither can you.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> ou prefer Furtwangler...fine, that is YOUR truth....not THE truth....WF's way is his "truth"....not THE truth. [which you cannot even define]


Did I not just post that EXACT THING earlier this morning????

Here is the post:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is MY truth, not THE truth.
> 
> The way Heck wants to see it, his way is the objective way, and my way is subjective preference. Baloney. It is ALL subjective variations based on what we each interpret as being true.


And yes, when you say that my truth is based on fairy tales and your truth is based on fact, what does that imply other than that your truth is the objective one and mine is not?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Bull$^*# you &^@%ing liar.


Oh, my....we are not having a good day, are we??:devil:



> ...to try and artificially delegitimize my opinions.


don't need to, you do such an excellent job of it yourself. :lol::lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> It's sort of addictive. You sometimes feel you're getting somewhere in clarifying terms, but then WHOOSH someone throws fuel onto the flames.


There is one poster here who cannot handle opinions that differ from his own. I should have known that starting a Toscanini thread would smoke him out and expose his insecurities.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Oh, my....we are not having a good day, are we??:devil:


I don't take kindly to people willfully misquoting me over and over again.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Did I not just post that EXACT THING earlier this morning??? Why are you such an unabashed, shameless, goddamned liar????


LOL!! you're changing your tune....for you - WF had the direct channel to the truth.....His truth, your truth was THE "truth"....for all musicians....whoever took a different path was nothing but a "trained monkey" mindlessly sounding notes off of a printed score, etc, etc....
So, you are agreeing that the WF approach is not THE absolute "truth" [which you cannot define in any case]


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is one poster here who cannot handle opinions that differ from his own. I should have known that starting a Toscanini thread would smoke him out and expose his insecurities.


right, go look in a mirror. :lol:
you're the one who said that Toscanini and his followers were nothing but "trained monkeys" because they didn't apprehend the "truth" of the music to be performed....a "truth" the existence of which is unsupportable.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I don't take kindly to people willfully misquoting me over and over again.


pot -> kettle ??


----------



## Guest

This thread has gone completely off the rails and I have reported it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! you're changing your tune....for you - WF had the direct channel to the truth.....His truth, your truth was THE "truth"....for all musicians....whoever took a different path was nothing but a "trained monkey" mindlessly sounding notes off of a printed score, etc, etc....
> So, you are agreeing that the WF approach is not THE absolute "truth" [which you cannot define in any case]


I *****NEVER******* said that. EVER. The most I said is that insofar as an ideal version of, say, the Beethoven 9th exists, I think Furtwängler got the closest to realizing it. But I said that was my OPINION, not objective fact. I stated this very early in the Furtwängler thread. If you want to keep misquoting me, grow a pair and find the quote where I stated Furtwängler is the only conductor with the path to divine truth, or whatever other nonsense you ascribe to me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MacLeod said:


> This thread has gone completely off the rails and I have reported it.


I apologize for losing my temper, but I think it is wrong to willfully and maliciously misquote a poster again and again in an effort to disparage him. That amounts to trolling. And when I confronted Heck on this yesterday, his response was "Quit whining." That shows an utter lack of decorum and bad faith. And there is nothing I can do about it. He just keeps making up things I never said. And then I quote myself directly saying the opposite, and he says "Quit whining." I'm sorry, but that is wrong and disrespectful.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

You don't need to define somethings to understand it.

This problem was known thousands of years ago, by Taoist ("The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."), Hinduist (idea of Atman, the "soul"), and later by Zen monks (rejecting languging/logic as way to enlightenment). Schopenhauen's Will as representaion of the world was influenced by Buddism (which not only rejects concepts, but also self). His idea is that our intellect only deals with "representation" of the world for survival purposes, and the will, or the striving, the urge, which is the fundamental reality of the universe. And music corresponds to the will just like the unresolved chord correspond to the sense of striving.

The scientific reason for not being able to define what you understand is that the language/logic faculty of the human brain is only a small part of your brain, there are other regions outside your phonological and semantic processing that can "experience" and understand things, without the need to "define" things. In split brain experiment, you left and right brain can understand things independently and respond in different way (the right brain does not understand language). Even when left-right are connected, they don't work in unison. Most artificial intelligence are not rational, they are incapable of being rational, but they have greater "understanding" of things than human now.

This explains that great insights that leads to the right intuition and right judgement is hard to explain and describe. This also explains that learning from book does not give you intuitive understanding of things. Gut feeling can be more powerful than rational thinking in many daily situations (of course it can be dangerous too). Musical experience mostly belongs to this realm outside rationality.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You don't need to define somethings to understand it.
> 
> This problem was known thousands of years ago, by Taoist ("The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name."), Hinduist (idea of Atman, the "soul"), and later by Zen monks (rejecting languging/logic as way to enlightenment). Schopenhauen's Will as representaion of the world was influenced by Buddism (which not only rejects concepts, but also self). His idea is that our intellect only deals with "representation" of the world for survival purposes, and the will, or the striving, the urge, which is the fundamental reality of the universe. And music corresponds to the will just like the unresolved chord correspond to the sense of striving.
> 
> The scientific reason for not being able to define what you understand is that the language/logic faculty of the human brain is only a small part of your brain, there are other regions outside your phonological and semantic processing that can "experience" and understand things, without the need to "define" things. In split brain experiment, you left and right brain can understand things independently and respond in different way (the right brain does not understand language). Even when left-right are connected, they don't work in unison. Most artificial intelligence are not rational, they are incapable of being rational, but they have greater "understanding" of things than human now.
> 
> This explains that great insights that leads to the right intuition and right judgement is hard to explain and describe. This also explains that learning from book does not give you intuitive understanding of things. Gut feeling can be more powerful than rational thinking in many daily situations (of course it can be dangerous too). Musical experience mostly belongs to this realm outside rationality.


You express all this well, and I wouldn't disagree at all.

Primarily, though, I commend you for avoiding the word "truth" in your post.

Where I've come to after so many pages on this thread, and the other one, is that that pesky word is the problem which is causing people to shout at each other. My frustration is that I would like to propose the use of the word "trooth" to refer to whatever it is that BH is concerned about. I would then interpret that as something relating to an experienced sense of rightness in a performance, and I would rest content.

I can't see it happening though. I am sure that if you respond to this you will challenge something or other in what I have posted. Go on: surprise me by agreeing. If so, you've got a guaranteed like for your post. Treat is as a bribe, if you like.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> You express all this well, and I wouldn't disagree at all.
> 
> Primarily, though, I commend you for avoiding the word "truth" in your post.
> 
> Where I've come to after so many pages on this thread, and the other one, is that that pesky word is the problem which is causing people to shout at each other. My frustration is that I would like to propose the use of the word "trooth" to refer to whatever it is that BH is concerned about. I would then interpret that as something relating to an experienced sense of rightness in a performance, and I would rest content.
> 
> I can't see it happening though. I am sure that if you respond to this you will challenge something or other in what I have posted. Go on: surprise me by agreeing. If so, you've got a guaranteed like for your post. Treat is as a bribe, if you like.


Nope, not going to change it. Heck is trying to analogize the appeal of Furtwangler to belief in unicorns and the tooth fairy. That's a load of bull. There is truth in what Furtwangler succeeds in doing and that is why he has the following he has. It is not a bunch of random hocus pocus, and most intelligent people know that.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> Schopenhauer doesn't say in those quotes that a single piece of music presents some specific thing that must be looked for. He talks about the general quality of music. For Schopenhauer, the music was a copy of the Will no matter if Toscanini or Furtwängler conducted and interpreted it. That's how I understand it.


Thank you for this sharing this quote and your insight. Schopenhauer's idea is powerful but also speculative. I personally wouldn't take it literally or be dogmatic about it. I just wanted to state that Furtwangler is evidently influenced by it because he talked about embodying the will of the composers.

Being well versed in the German tradition I have no doubt that Furtwangler had a deep understanding of what the "will" means because Nietzche also has his variant just like Schopenhauer's version is a variant of Plato's idea that music is the "soul" (because of the divine ratios and the emotion they correspond to). Celibidache, a disciple of Furtwangler, focused instead on the Phenomenology of the music that is related to Hegel and Husserl. Like it or not, they are interesting ways to approach music, to say the least (and contains a wealth of insights if you are willing to delve into it). It is unclear how that translates to their interpretations but their aversion to recordings clearly shows that they took their philosophy seriously (and Furtwangler's pursuit of spontaneity).

To me, this is the same phenomena but interpreted differently by different people throughout history. I don't need to be pedantic to see that BH is apparently having a variant of the idea that is very hard to define. But he is not a genius philosopher like Schopenhauer who spent years writing his magnum opus to develop the idea, which few people even care today (Mahler was clearly influenced by it, e.g. Symphony 3 as the universe). To expect a satisfactory answer from BH by asking him to clarify all the terms and weed out all metaphysical "fluff" is not going to work.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> Where I've come to after so many pages on this thread, and the other one, is that that pesky word is the problem which is causing people to shout at each other. My frustration is that I would like to propose the use of the word "trooth" to refer to whatever it is that BH is concerned about. I would then interpret that as something relating to an experienced sense of rightness in a performance, and I would rest content.


I thought you don't like "cancel culture" yet you are proposing a censored version of "truth" as "trooth", acting as language police.



Eclectic Al said:


> I can't see it happening though. I am sure that if you respond to this you will challenge something or other in what I have posted. Go on: surprise me by agreeing. If so, you've got a guaranteed like for your post. Treat is as a bribe, if you like.


It's not about "agreeing" or "disagreeing" or "getting likes". I see more pressure to "normalize" BH's position. BH is just defending his view here, he does not have any power to impose it on others, or to "normalize" others as a group.


----------



## Woodduck

The difficulty



Brahmsianhorn said:


> In my view, Reiner is not telling the story of the work. He is presenting something faceless. So it is an incomplete interpretation. It is not objectively true. It is a* half truth.* Only the skeleton of the work, not *the entire picture.* For me and others, *Furtwangler fills that gap.* He immerses himself into the meaning of the work. He understands the harmonic language, the key relationships, and incorporates this into his interpretation. *He tells the full story*, not just the bare bones.


No performance of any work of music tells the "full story" of it. Not even the composer knows the "full story," because there is no "full story" to know - no "entire picture," no "whole truth" or "half truth." The "story" of a work of music includes every thought and feeling of the composer that went to produce that work, every aspect of his life and world that provided substance and direction for his thoughts and feelings, and every meaning the work could have for everyone who performs or hears it in perpetuity. There is no limit to those things, many of them are unknowable, and they may contradict each other. A work of art's "story" is thus open-ended, ever-changing, and never "full."

Every conductor will tell, according to his personality, feelings and understanding, a slightly different story of a work, will express different aspects of it, and may add something individual to its ever-evolving collective story. Some will add more than others, and what they add may be influential or merely idiosyncratic. We tend to celebrate those conductors who add something distinctive - who reveal hitherto unimagined elements in the story a work can tell. Toscanini added something to the story which made a great impression in his time and has reverberated down to ours. Furtwangler added something less easily assimilated and imitated by others. Whatever value we place on what either of them added, however, we can't say that they told any "full story."



> This is *MY* truth, not THE truth.


Truth is not mine or yours. My feelings, my impression, my idea, my conception, my preference... These are things I can lay claim to. Truth is not such a thing. Truth transcends me. It includes everyone, whether or not they grasp it, acknowledge it, accept it, or like it.



> The way Heck wants to see it, his way is the objective way, and my way is subjective preference. Baloney. *It is ALL subjective variations **based on what we each interpret as being true.*


Yes, any interpretation of Beethoven's 5th represents subjective values, but there are objective qualities in the work, as well as known facts about it, which underlie interpretive decisions - truths which are not "MY truth" or "YOUR truth." It has to be acknowledged that some interpretations are more in accord with what is objectively present in a work or known about it, whether from its composer's expressed preferences or its traditions of performance as known from direct experience or scholarly research. The balance struck, in any performance, between conformity to objective knowledge and subjective interpretation is the performer's prerogative; the value placed on one versus the other is ultimately personal, and "objective vs subjective" doesn't necessarily imply "right vs wrong." It may even happen that a conductor's subjective choices turn out to be objectively supported by later research. It appears, for example, that Beethoven advocated modifications of tempo according to the feeling expressed in the music, and although we don't know how much modification he was talking about, the idea sounds much like what Wagner advocated in his essay "On Conducting." It seems perfectly conceivable that Furtwangler's "subjective" tempo changes represented a more "objectively" Beethovenian style than the more rigid aproach to tempo of Toscanini and his numerous so-called "objectivist" or "literalist" descendants.


----------



## annaw

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Thank you for this sharing this quote and your insight. Schopenhauer's idea is powerful but also speculative. I personally wouldn't take it literally or *be dogmatic about it*. I just wanted to state that Furtwangler is evidently influenced by it because he talked about embodying the will of the composers.
> 
> Being well versed in the German tradition I have no doubt that Furtwangler had a deep understanding of what the "will" means because Nietzche also has his variant just like Schopenhauer's version is a variant of Plato's idea that music is the "soul" (because of the divine ratios and the emotion they correspond to). Celibidache, a disciple of Furtwangler, focused instead on the Phenomenology of the music that is related to Hegel and Husserl. Like it or not, they are interesting ways to approach music, to say the least (and contains a wealth of insights if you are willing to delve into it). It is unclear how that translates to their interpretations but their aversion to recordings clearly shows that they took their philosophy seriously (and Furtwangler's pursuit of spontaneity).


Yes, neither would I. I disagree with many ideas which philosophers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche propagated but I find them interesting to discuss and fascinating to learn about. Thanks for your interesting thoughts! I think I should dive a bit deeper into the philosophy of art and aesthetics to come to any kind of reasonable conclusion but I have found this discussion interesting and enjoyable!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> Truth is not mine or yours. My feelings, my impression, my idea, my conception, my preference... These are things I can lay claim to. Truth is not such a thing. Truth transcends me. It includes everyone, whether or not they grasp it, acknowledge it, accept it, or like it.


Not necessarily, Mr. Woodduck, "inner truth" is totally valid if you are an idealist or a Buddist (I have to be very careful with this actually if you happen to know about Buddism). Truth is a multifaceted idea, there is truth of statement, truth of idea, truth of reasoning, scientific truth, truth of faith, truth of fact, truth of fiction, truth as probability, universal truth, partial truth, etc.

Your view of truth seems to be a rationalist one, truth as a universal statement, which is also metaphysical in nature (an empiricist would certainly say so, as demonstrated famously in Hume's black swan).

Your position is nonetheless very reasonable.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> Truth is not mine or yours. My feelings, my impression, my idea, my conception, my preference... These are things I can lay claim to. Truth is not such a thing. *Truth transcends me*. It includes everyone, whether or not they grasp it, acknowledge it, accept it, or like it.


You are getting very picky here.

"My truth" simply means my perception of truth, which may change any day, any hour. And I can never know, nor claim to know, the entire truth. No one owns truth. It is beyond us. We are trying to perceive it. But when you say that "truth transcends me," it would seem that you do agree with the concept of abstract, universal truth, no?

And when I say Furtwangler gets the whole story, I should really say more of the story than Reiner. No one ever gets the fulls story, and Furtwangler was the first to say this.

But if two people were summarizing George Orwell's Animal Farm, and the first person depicted it literally as a story about animals, and the other person depicted it as a story with themes about the danger of totalitarian government, wouldn't you say it was fair to conclude that one was telling more of the "full story" than the other? That is a rough equivalent of how I see Furtwangler vs Toscanini.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Not necessarily, Mr. Woodduck, "inner truth" is totally valid if you are an idealist or a Buddist. Truth is a multifaceted idea, there is truth of statement, truth of idea, truth of reasoning, scientific truth, truth of faith, truth of fact, truth of fiction, truth as probability, universal truth, partial truth, etc.


How coherent or useful are the notions represented by these brands of "truth"? Is any good purpose served by turning "truth" into a catch-all for what are fundamentally different things (or, as you've also just done, making things which are fundamentally the same look different)? Or is the main product of such lumping the sort of confusion and contentiouness generated by this thread? Before you dump such a load of epistemic rummage in our midst you'd better show us, for example, how "truth of faith" is anything but a Trojan horse designed to corrupt thought.



> Your view of truth seems to be a rationalist one, truth as a universal statement, which is also metaphysical in nature (an empiricist would certainly say so, as demonstrated famously in Hume's black swan).


I have no view of truth. I do have a concern for clarity of thought and for the exquisite tool of language by which such clarity is secured and guarded. It is not one of the legitimate purposes of language to obliterate necessary distinctions.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I *****NEVER******* said that. EVER. The most I said is that insofar as an ideal version of, say, the Beethoven 9th exists, I think Furtwängler got the closest to realizing it. But I said that was my OPINION, not objective fact. I stated this very early in the Furtwängler thread. If you want to keep misquoting me, grow a pair and find the quote where I stated Furtwängler is the only conductor with the path to divine truth, or whatever other nonsense you ascribe to me.


OK, so now you are changing your tune again....yours and WF's opinions are OK, but not *the* truth??
you are no longer searching for the absolute, abstract "truth"??


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are getting very picky here.
> 
> "My truth" simply means my perception of truth, which may change any day, any hour. And I can never know, nor claim to know, the entire truth. No one owns truth. It is beyond us. We are trying to perceive it. But when you say that "truth transcends me," it would seem that you do agree with the concept of abstract, universal truth, no?
> 
> And when I say Furtwangler gets the whole story, I should really say more of the story than Reiner. No one ever gets the fulls story, and Furtwangler was the first to say this.
> 
> But if two people were summarizing George Orwell's Animal Farm, and the first person depicted it literally as a story about animals, and the other person depicted it as a story with themes about the danger of totalitarian government, wouldn't you say it was fair to conclude that one was telling more of the "full story" than the other? That is a rough equivalent of how I see Furtwangler vs Toscanini.


Music itself is a far more abstract form of expression than are words. In addition, we know or can be fairly confident in the underlying theme of Orwell's _Animal Farm_. Composers, however, haven't explained what they always meant by this or that note. On the other hand, in the context of a novel, I can sometimes be quite confident in the meaning the author wanted to convey through single sentences. Of course not always but I think more often than while listening to a composition. This means that I can put into words a potential meaning and interpretation. That's much more difficult to do with a piece of music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> OK, so now you are changing your tune again....yours and WF's opinions are OK, but not *the* truth??
> you are no longer searching for the absolute, abstract "truth"??


I have always said that truth is something abstract that we can only approximate. Furtwangler himself said this.

And I have said that my opinion of Furtwangler is only my opinion, not absolute truth. It is merely my perception of truth.

I am not changing my tune. I have been consistent on this since the beginning of the Furtwangler thread.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> I would then interpret that as something relating to an experienced sense of rightness in a performance, and I would rest content.


That sounds good...I just want him to cease with this premise that there is an absolute, objective "truth" in all music, along with it the claim that Furtwangler is the only mortal to be divinely blessed to apprehend such truth, and the ridiculous claim that any conductor who doesn't follow the WF path to supposed truth must be a "trained monkey", or metronomic time-beater. I don't see it happening....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> That sounds good...I just want him to cease with this premise that there is an absolute, objective "truth" in all music, along with it the claim that Furtwangler is the only mortal to be divinely blessed to apprehend such truth, and the ridiculous claim that any conductor who doesn't follow the WF path to supposed truth must be a "trained monkey", or metronomic time-beater. I don't see it happening....


Would you stop lying??? MODS!!!!!!!


----------



## Itullian

Is there a fascination with Toscanini?
i never remember see his recordings on the current listening thread.
i see many Furtwangler recordings there though,


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck, I cannot physically come to where you are and force you to stop lying about what I say. What you doing is trolling. I will only ask one more time: STOP IT!!!!


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have always said that truth is something abstract that we can only approximate. Furtwangler himself said this.


You cannot even define it, or posit its existence relative to music.



> I am not changing my tune.


sure you are. your position has been - All music has an overlay of non-musical abstract truth. WF is superior to other conductors who do not seek such supposed "truth"....since they do not seek your "truth", other conductors must be wrong...
not only are they wrong, they are no better than "trained monkeys".
now you are whistling a different tune?? your supposed "truth" is now just your opinion?? WF's opinion?? what happened to the ultimate "truth"??


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Would you stop lying??? MODS!!!!!!!


would you stop whining...


----------



## Woodduck

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You are getting very picky here.
> 
> "My truth" simply means my perception of truth, which may change any day, any hour. And I can never know, nor claim to know, the entire truth. No one owns truth. It is beyond us. We are trying to perceive it. But when you say that "truth transcends me," it would seem that you do agree with the concept of abstract, universal truth, no?
> 
> And when I say Furtwangler gets the whole story, I should really say more of the story than Reiner. No one ever gets the fulls story, and Furtwangler was the first to say this.
> 
> But if two people were summarizing George Orwell's Animal Farm, and the first person depicted it literally as a story about animals, and the other person depicted it as a story with themes about the danger of totalitarian government, wouldn't you say it was fair to conclude that one was telling more of the "full story" than the other? That is a rough equivalent of how I see Furtwangler vs Toscanini.


I'm glad that you agree to modify your statement so as to make it correspond more closely with objective truth.  But do you see how statements incompletely thought-out or deceptively worded can inspire controversy?

Yes, the one interpretation of Animal Farm certainly tells more of its story than the other, and I must agree that Furtwangler's work had more to tell us about music (some music, one should add) than Reiner or Toscanini. One of my tests for artistic greatness is "imaginability"; I ask whether a work of art or a performance is something a "normal" person could imagine in his wildest dreams. It's a silly test, maybe, and quite subjective (who is this "normal" person?), but it does make one look at things from a certain angle. I think a normal person could imagine a Toscanini much more easily than a Furtwangler. Hearing the latter's take on Beethoven's 9th was like discovering a new continent - but then so was hearing Roger Norrington's early attempt to take Beethoven's fast metronome markings seriously. Norrington isn't a tenth the artist that Furtwangler was, but in both cases my view of the work was enlarged.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> You cannot even define it, or posit its existence relative to music.
> 
> sure you are. your position has been - All music has an overlay of non-musical abstract truth. WF is superior to other conductors who do not seek such supposed "truth"....since they do not seek your "truth", other conductors must be wrong...
> not only are they wrong, they are no better than "trained monkeys".
> now you are whistling a different tune?? your supposed "truth" is now just your opinion?? WF's opinion?? what happened to the ultimate "truth"??


I have a right to my damned opinion, but my opinion is not equal to objective truth! It is only my perception of truth, no more valid than anyone else's perception of truth. This is what I have always said!!!!!!

Why don't you grow a pair of balls and quote me instead of making crap up, Mr. Fake Literalist!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> Norrington isn't a tenth the artist that Furtwangler was, but in both cases my view of the work was enlarged.


Absolutely. They both contain truth.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, I cannot physically come to where you are and force you to stop lying about what I say. What you doing is trolling. I will only ask one more time: STOP IT!!!!


own up to what you've been saying for the last 2000 postings over 2 threads. Are you now claiming that all music does not have an overlay of essential "truth" or extra-musical "meaning"?? you've maintained that the score is essentially meaningless or secondary when compared to WF's attempt to apprehend musical "truth"?? [which you cannot even define]. Are denying that you said that conductors who abide by the score are "trained monkeys"?? that they have nothing to say??


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have a right to my damned opinion, but my opinion is not equal to objective truth!


HALLELUJAH!! thank you....of course you have a right to your opinion....never an issue.


----------



## annaw

Itullian said:


> Is there a fascination with Toscanini?
> i never remember see his recordings on the current listening thread.
> i see many Furtwangler recordings there though,


I think the thread title is somewhat misleading ...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> own up to what you've been saying for the last 2000 postings over 2 threads. Are you now claiming that all music does not have an overlay of essential "truth" or extra-musical "meaning"?? you've maintained that the score is essentially meaningless or secondary when compared to WF's attempt to apprehend musical "truth"?? [which you cannot even define]. Are denying that you said that conductors who abide by the score are "trained monkeys"?? that they have nothing to say??


It absolutely does have truth beneath it but our perceptions vary. This is what I have always said. The score is not the end of the story. This is what I have always said. Going beyond the score is not going into made up fairy land. This is what I have always said. And if all you are promoting is regurgitating the score without thinking as to its meaning, how it connects to people, or why you are performing it, then you are essentially acting as nothing more than a trained monkey. This is what I have always said.

I NEVER said only WF has the path to truth. That is YOUR lie.

I NEVER said all other conductors are false. That is YOUR lie.

I NEVER said my perception of truth equals objective, absolute truth. That is YOUR lie.

I am going to tell you one more time: Stop lying about what I say.


----------



## Eclectic Al

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I thought you don't like "cancel culture" yet you are proposing a censored version of "truth" as "trooth", acting as language police.
> 
> It's not about "agreeing" or "disagreeing" or "getting likes". I see more pressure to "normalize" BH's position. BH is just defending his view here, he does not have any power to impose it on others, or to "normalize" others as a group.


I found this response disappointing, but not surprising. Ho hum. No likes today. Sorry.


----------



## Eclectic Al

To be more helpful, I would be OK with

Truth (noun)
1) That which is in accord with fact or reality
2) BH's usage re musical performance.

Then, as long as we always were clear about whether we meant truth (1) or truth (2), we could communicate. I would take truth (2) to refer to a personal preference and we'd be fine. I don't think it's cancel culture to ask people to clarify which distinct meaning of a word they want others to assume in a particular context.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> To be more helpful, I would be OK with
> 
> Truth (noun)
> 1) That which is in accord with fact or reality
> 2) BH's usage re musical performance.
> 
> Then, as long as we always were clear about whether we meant truth (1) or truth (2), we could communicate. I would take truth (2) to refer to a personal preference and we'd be fine. I don't think it's cancel culture to ask people to clarify which distinct meaning of a word they want others to assume in a particular context.


Where does universal truth fit in?


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from commenting negatively on other members *no matter what they post*. I'd rather not shut the thread down temporarily while the moderators decide how to proceed. If members continue to chide and insult others, we will shut down the thread.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where does universal truth fit in?


Could you clarify what you mean by "universal truth". I understand what it could mean in an abstract system like maths, based on defined axioms and methods of valid reasoning. I can also understand that there could be universal truth about things in themselves, although we might not be able to access those and have to settle on our perceptions - not so reliably universal. I don't understand what it would mean in the context of musical performance. I can understand there may be commonalities driven by similarities in our brain function and/or our experiences, and differences from the fact that we are individuals. Universal truth - I don't see what that could mean in that context.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Could you clarify what you mean by "universal truth".


Is rape being wrong a truth or a preference?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It absolutely does have truth beneath it....


Nope, that is your imagination only....you have every right to your opinion, of course, but you run aground when you try to categorically announce its universal veracity.



> The score is not the end of the story.


I never said it was, that is your faulty construct. 


> Going beyond the score is not going into made up fairy land.


?? fairy-land?? anyway...of course one can go "beyond the score" - performance practice, style, the composer's verbal or written input regarding the music itself. what is unnecessary is the non-musical pseudo-philosophic baggage....

If all you are promoting is fabricating pseudo-philosophical nonsense that is unrelated to performance without following the composer's intent, then you are essentially acting as nothing more than a pretentious phony.



> I NEVER said only WF has the path to truth.


 baloney, you've been spouting that stuff for 2000+ postings.



> I NEVER said all other conductors are false.


but they don't follow the WF approach to apprehension of the truth, so they are trained monkeys.



> I NEVER said my perception of truth equals objective, absolute truth.


you can't even define it, but according to you WF, and yourself, are on the divinely enlightened path....

I understand your back-peddling, back-tracking....when your untenable positions are over-run, you have to go on defense...understandable....but you said it - you have every right to your opinion. no problem.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where does universal truth fit in?


Where does it fit in with Beethoven?? in the score?? or in some pie-in-the-sky metaphysical concept??


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Is rape being wrong a truth or a preference?


I have served as a juror on a rape trial, so I have encountered this in more than an abstract situation. Rape is a matter of objectifying a fellow person, and regarding them as a means for one's own ends, rather than as an autonomous person with their own ends. From my own moral perspective it is wrong. I imagine there could be situations which a utilitarian could construct where they would dispute that position: but I can't be doing with consequentialist morality.

Also, in relation to universal truth, you are really asking whether all would agree that rape is wrong, and sadly I am afraid the facts of the world might suggest that it is only too possible for people to dispute that in particular contexts.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> baloney, you've been spouting that stuff for 2000+ postings.
> 
> but they don't follow the WF approach to apprehension of the truth, so they are trained monkeys.
> 
> you can't even define it, but according to you WF, and yourself, are on the divinely enlightened path....


Act like a man and quote me where I said that my path is the divinely enlightened one or that only WF is the path to truth.

Oh look, it is me at the top of this page talking about WF and Norrington and proving that you are liar.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolutely. They both contain truth.


Not good enough? How about post # 137 from the Furtwangler thread posted TWO MONTHS AGO. Does this sound familiar? Where have I changed my tune?



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, this is absolutely disgusting. How do you type such crap with a straight face. I have NEVER said any of this. All I have said is that I prefer WF's recordings to other conductors in German Romantic repertoire. I don't have that right???
> 
> I have made it CLEAR OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that this is my subjective opinion. And you keep coming on here and LYING by putting words in my mouth that my opinion is universal dogma. I NEVER EVER SAID THAT.
> 
> WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT MY WORDS, HECK???????


Two months ago, Heck. Two months ago. Where have I changed my tune?

So after two months, the question remains: Why do you keep lying about my words?

.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Where does it fit in with Beethoven?? in the score?? or in some pie-in-the-sky metaphysical concept??


The meaning of the music. The reason we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The meaning of the music. The reason we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


I must be honest. I have listened to Beethoven for a fair few hours of my life. In that time I have felt moved to excitement, sadness, joy, even awe; I have never felt anything where the word "truth" came into the picture. I just don't see the relevance.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> I must be honest. I have listened to Beethoven for a fair few hours of my life. In that time I have felt moved to excitement, sadness, joy, even awe; I have never felt anything where the word "truth" came into the picture. I just don't see the relevance.


Exactly. I hear you......


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> How coherent or useful are the notions represented by these brands of "truth"? Is any good purpose served by turning "truth" into a catch-all for what are fundamentally different things (or, as you've also just done, making things which are fundamentally the same look different)? Or is the main product of such lumping the sort of confusion and contentiouness generated by this thread? Before you dump such a load of epistemic rummage in our midst you'd better show us, for example, how "truth of faith" is anything but a Trojan horse designed to corrupt thought.


I am not "turning" anything nor was I "obliterate necessary distinctions". In fact, I am making a lot more distinctions than you are accusing me of. To be coherent requires an exorbitant amount of works which is misplaced in this discussion.

The Rationalist's idea of truth is by no means the "status quo" or the default definition when it comes to this difficult philosophical problem of "truth". Even if you have adopted the "status quo" way of thinking it does not mean other people should think in similar ways.

The problem is that people think in different ways and using vague, different concepts all the time. It is important to recognize the complexity and try to understand others, not to "normalize" other people's thinking into "crystal clarity" with your own way of understanding.

I have no doubt that you think deeply and clearly and apply language in a responsible way. But you have demonstrated strong philosophical presuppositions without being aware of them. I could ask you why "truth" must be universal and show why "universal truth" does not exist and it's a useless concept.

Even in the realm of mathematics, there are weak Platonists (who believe some fundamental axioms are arbitrary, ie subjective), strong Platonists, and the mathematician who believes the whole system of mathematics is arbitrary, ie subjective. You cannot masquerade such a philosophical view "truth is universal" as "no view of truth" or "a concern for clarity of thought" and goes on correcting others' idea of "inner truth", which is just as clear/obscure as "universal truth".



Woodduck said:


> Before you dump such a load of epistemic rummage in our midst you'd better show us, for example, how "truth of faith" is anything but a Trojan horse designed to corrupt thought.


I will gladly rise up to the challenge. But please don't accuse me of obfuscation and please be gentle with the tribal language "us".

"Truth of faith" as "Trojan horse designed to corrupt thought" has a modern version in evolution scientist Richard Dawkins' theory of cultural meme. Dawkins argues that "religious faith" function similar to a virus in the what it infects, self-replicate, and propagate, even at the expense of its host. It operates at the level of information in the brain. You could definitely interpret "Truth of faith" in this light which is physical (information) that it's a form of culture virus encoded in the religious text.

Havard computer scientist Joshua Bach has a more favorable view of "faith", that "faith" is a form of collective operating system install on human brain to be able to have certain features of collective actions, similar to how brain functions as a collection of individual neurons. In the computational view, there is no clear distinction between individual consciousness (as computation) and "collective consciousness" (as social computation) so the "truth" lies in collective or the communal structure that emerges from faithful individuals, again, the religious text are encoded human software for a large consciousness to emerge (this is surprisingly close to some interpretation of the holy spirit). This view is also compatible with modern Game Theory in that some (desirable) social states are only possible when individuals in a society adopt certain values as if it's absolute (which can be shown with crystal clear mathematics but this is really not the place).

And please refrain from the naive notion of reading the religious text literally to understand what it represents. Let me entertain you with some quotes from Enlightenment thinkers on this

"How many unlikely things are there testified by people worthy of faith, which, if we cannot persuade ourselves absolutely to believe, we ought at least to leave them in suspense; for, to condemn them as impossible, is by a temerarious presumption to pretend to know the utmost bounds of possibility." This is Montaign recognizing that he would be committing another metaphysical form of "faith" if he doesn't leave the problem of faith in suspense.

"After having understood the whole nature of man. That a religion may be true, it must have knowledge of our nature. It ought to know its greatness and littleness, and the reason for both. What religion but the Christian has known this." This is a physicist and mathematician Pascal recognizing the role of "religion" is not incompatible with rational understanding of man. To the contrary, a "faith" that acknowledge the knowledge is more true than a "faith" that does not.

"I honoured our Theology and aspired as much as anyone to reach to heaven, but having learned to regard it as a most highly assured fact that the road is less open to the most ignorant than to the most learned, and that the revealed truths which conduct thither are quite above our intelligence, I should not have dared to submit them to the feebleness of my reasonings: and I thought that, in order to undertake to examine them and succeed in so doing, it was necessary to have some extraordinary assistance from above and to be more than a mere man." This is the great Descarte understanding the reality ("truth") that exists outside of rational reasoning (which is the subject of theology). The fact that there is a physical reality outside rationality is almost consensus. Whether or not we can perceive it is an open question.

"The most persistent outer relations which science believes in are never matters of experience at all but have to be disengaged from under experience by a process of elimination, that is, by ignoring conditions which are always present. The elementary laws of mechanics, physics, and chemistry are all of this sort. The principle of uniformity in nature is of this sort; it has to be sought under and in spite of the most rebellious appearances, and our conviction of its truth is far more like a religious faith than like assent to a demonstration." This is William James recognizing the fact that foundations of science require "faith", not only in theory but also in practice.

The "truth" you were referring to is just one of the many. But you are denying a non-universal version of the concept of the truth, a personal, inner truth, by claiming that "that's not the right definition" or implying that "that's a misuse of language". You are missing the point.

I don't think BH can express in simple and clear terms what he is trying to convey because this is a deep problem. You can explain Superstring theory in clear terms in three years, or you can explain Superstring theory in vague terms in five minutes. You can't have both for this old problem of "music as hidden truth". All you can do is to back him into a corner and make him "normalize" his position into something reasonable like what you have said which to me, is not what BH is trying to express. I don't feel compelled to know exactly what he meant.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> .... the divinely enlightened one or that only WF is the path to truth.


your words - just a couple of hours ago - regarding "universal truth" you:


> "The meaning of the music."


I keep calling you out on your insistence that "universal truth", or extra-musical "meaning" exists in music...you cannot prove it, you cannot support it, you cannot positively claim that any conductor is capturing it or communing with it
1.) you cannot prove any such universal truth exists.
2.) the idea that some divinely anointed mortal, like WF, has the inside track on such truth or meaning is ridiculous, and the idea that this pursuit of the unprovable makes him superior to Toscanini, Reiner or anyone else is nonsense.
3.) further - your disdain for those conductors who do not engage in this pursuit of the imaginary non-musical "truth" are nothing but "trained monkeys" or metronomic time-beaters is just ignorant silliness.
Of course you're going to get slapped down for such nonsense.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The meaning of the music. The reason we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


your opinion, in no way any form of "universal truth".
Some might like to listen to it because they like how it sounds......you know, a performance based upon the score...


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The meaning of the music. The reason we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


Whether you like or not, you are at fault for sowing confusion and conflict. See how you wrote "we" and not "I", to talk about your supposedly 'subjective truth', after protesting for several dozen pages that people misrepresent you?

The reasons I listen to Beethoven, and so prefer blomstedt and Wand to Fartwangler, are different to yours.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The problem is that people think in different ways and using vague, different concepts all the time. It is important to recognize the complexity and try to understand others, not to "normalize" other people's thinking into "crystal clarity" with your own way of understanding


Important according to who? You, of course! And why important to you? Because you want to "normalise" others' thinking in accordance with your own values (these values being not to impose "crystal clarity")!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Important according to who? You, of course! And why important to you? Because you want to "normalise" others' thinking in accordance with your own values (these values being not to impose "crystal clarity")!


Yes important to me, and maybe important to Mr. Woodduck, but apparently not you. That's why it's not written for you.

I made no effort to "normalize" because I don't have the power as a group. You don't have any pressure conforming to me, an individual.

If everyone is just trying to understand and criticize you for trolling, I will be defending you against normalization too.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes important to me, and maybe important to Mr. Woodduck, but apparently not you. That's why it's not written for you.
> 
> I made no effort to "normalize"...


Mate, You just presented 5 quotes by various thinkers in an attempt to sway Wodduck to your own line of reasoning which is a line you clam reflects the wider reality of thinking in buddhism et etc.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Mate, You just presented 5 quotes by various thinkers in an attempt to sway Wodduck to your own line of reasoning.


That's for his request "you better explain!".

"Normalization" means the process of making someone conform to accepted/normal standards of behaviors in a social GROUP. I am not a group.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> That's for his request "you better explain!".
> 
> "Normalization" means the process of making someone conform to accepted/normal standards of behaviors in a social GROUP. I am not a group.


Then why did you present quotes from a host of thinkers and why have you raised the mammoth groups of religion and spiritualism to sway wodduck?! You've obviously been appealing to a collective in order to "normalise" us "rationalists"!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Then why did you present quotes from a host of thinkers and why have you raised the mammoth groups of religion and spiritualism to sway wodduck?! You've obviously been appealing to a collective in order to "normalise" us "rationalists"!


Troll harder.

Yes, I am sure Mr. Woodduck will feel the tremendous social pressure to conform to a bunch of dead people who wrote "epistemic rummage" in an archaic style.

And yes, pointing out rationalist is not the only philosophical perspective is "normalizing" rationalist, what a great rationalist argument.

The "host of thinkers" are mostly rationalists btw.

"Us rationalists", that's a good one.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Troll harder.
> 
> Yes, I am sure Mr. Woodduck will feel the tremendous social pressure to conform to a bunch of dead people who wrote "epistemic rummage" in an archaic style.
> 
> And yes, pointing out rationalist is not the only philosophical perspective is "normalizing" rationalist, what a great rationalist argument.
> 
> The "host of thinkers" are mostly rationalists btw.
> 
> "Us rationalists", that's a good one.


I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out the pot calling the kettle black!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not trolling. I'm pointing out the pot calling the kettle black!


OK, I single-handedly normalized a group of rationalists ("us rationalist"), including myself. I am a powerful black pot.

2nd repeat: "Normalization" means the process of making someone conform to accepted/normal standards of behaviors in a social GROUP. I am not a group.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> OK, I single-handedly normalized a group of rationalists ("us rationalist"), including myself. I am a powerful black pot.
> 
> 2nd repeat: "Normalization" means the process of making someone conform to accepted/normal standards of behaviors in a social GROUP. I am not a group.


The amount of 'irrationalists' in the world probably dwarfs 'rationalists'.

Development: I'm not sure I even agree with you that normalization has to involve making someone conform to a social GROUP. The word 'Norm' can mean 'normative'. Something can be normative if held by only a few people.

I can't see you doing anything other than, in response to rationalist norms of trying to agree on terms for purposes of clarity, pushing your own opppsite norms.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> Whether you like or not, you are at fault for sowing confusion and conflict. See how you wrote "we" and not "I", to talk about your supposedly 'subjective truth', after protesting for several dozen pages that people misrepresent you?
> 
> The reasons I listen to Beethoven, and so prefer blomstedt and Wand to Fartwangler, are different to yours.


Good Lord, this is nuts. When I say the reason "we listen" where on earth do you get that I'm saying our reasons are all the same when I've been saying the exact opposite this whole time?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Good Lord, this is nuts. When I say the reason "we listen" where on earth do you get that I'm saying our reasons are all the same when I've been saying the exact opposite this whole time?


Let me take your through it, so you can see why people might continue to interpret your words in the way you are objecting to.Let us walk hand-in-hand, through the garden of logical delights:

1st Delight:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where does universal truth fit in?


2nd Delight:



Heck148 said:


> Where does it fit in with Beethoven?? in the score?? or in some pie-in-the-sky metaphysical concept??


3rd Delight:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> The meaning of the music. *The reason* we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


!!!

This, despite the fact that many people here have been saying they don't listen to Beethoven to find truth, subjective or not.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
We don’t listen to Beethoven for any reason at all? What, are we forced at gunpoint? You have no idea even what you are responding to. You’re just looking for reasons to get upset.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> We don't listen to Beethoven for any reason at all? What, are we forced at gunpoint? You have no idea even what you are responding to. You're just looking for reasons to get upset.


This is a strange response.

You said we all listen to find "truth" (despite also claiming that our reasons are not all the same - typical logical inconsistency).

I stated we listen for many reasons, and you package this as me saying we don't listen to for any reason at all!

You then state that I don't know what I'm even responding to. I do. I get the whole debate between 'literalists' and non-literalists.

I'm going beyond this. Many of us don't care about 'truth' when it comes to music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> The amount of 'irrationalists' in the world probably dwarfs 'rationalists'.


I can tell by reading the posts you have made.



RogerWaters said:


> Development: I'm not sure I even agree with you that normalization has to involve making someone conform to a social GROUP. The word 'Norm' can mean 'normative'. Something can be normative if held by only a few people.


I have defined the term, that what's I meant. What you are saying here is fair, but that's not what I meant.

How about socialization?



RogerWaters said:


> I can't see you doing anything other than, in response to rationalist norms of trying to agree on terms for purposes of clarity, pushing your own opppsite norms.


Are you sure it's not fff but ppp?

A careful rationalist knows the following:

1. Every definition of terms is arbitrary, there is no pou sto (Quine)
2. There is a boundary within which rationality can apply (Kant, Descarte, Wittgenstein)

It depends on the question.

If the question is a difficult, metaphysical or scientific one, then insisting upon clarity may not be helpful. In a daily discussion of physics, it best not to define clearly, for example, what AdS/CFT really means because you will be left with no time to know what's it about (and no time for food and sleep), which is what matters. Most people can still discuss about AdS/CFT is but only a handful of physicists in the world really know what every term means with clarity. (AdS/CFT is a theory not a fact)

If the question is about the insight of Zen Buddism, then by definitional clarity, you have defeated the purpose of contemplating on the limit of language and causality, and you have not escaped the hidden influences of context and the web of symbols (signifiers) that is powering these concepts and terms, in order to see things as they are (as wholistic rather than a set of properties). I know people cannot accept this but even "nonsense" (try read some famous Koan) has been a useful method to gain insight in certain schools of Zen Buddhism.

If you are a rationalist, you can also rationalize "irrationalities" to be content with it. In this way, you regain rationality from "irrational" arguments. The academic way of defining rationality of human behavior is that it is "rationalizable", that they satisfy a set of axioms for consistency. If my wife behaves hysterical, I can dismiss such behaver as "irrational" but I can also rationalize such behavior as voicing a serious complaint in an indirect way. In the second view, I have not only rationalized my wife's behavior but also understood the true meaning of such "irrationality", which is rationalizable if you know psychoanalysis.

Definitional consistency is by no means necessary in a casual philosophical discussion because a notion of dynamic consistency axiom can also be adopted, ie., a form of dialectics, during such process the definition of for example "justice" always modifies itself to reconcile with carefully constructed paradoxies.

In many of Plato's dialogues, big concepts such as "Truth", "Virtue", "Justice" do not have a clear definition. The dialectics inform us what they aren't, but not what they are.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> This is a strange response.
> 
> You said we all listen to find "truth" (despite also claiming that our reasons are not all the same - typical logical inconsistency).
> 
> I stated we listen for many reasons.
> 
> You reply that I don't know what I'm even responding to.


Whatever reason we listen to Beethoven, that is the truth of why we listen to Beethoven. I never said we listen in order to find truth.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Whatever reason we listen to Beethoven, that is the truth of why we listen to Beethoven. I never said we listen in order to find truth.


You said before the reason we all listen to Beethoven is to find truth. You are now saying the truth of why we listen to beethoven are our different reasons. In short: you are now saying something very different, but with the same combination of words which makes it sound, on a surface level, like you are saying the same thing.

You are quite adept at subtly changing you view, in such a way that you can spin it like you didn't change it. It's what Heck and others also protest about, in addition to your unconventional usage of words and logical inconsistencies. We don't feel it's in good faith, at all.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> You said before the reason we all listen to Beethoven is to find truth.


No I did not! That is Heck misquoting me. Don't you understand by now he is nothing but a troll?


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No I did not! That is Heck misquoting me. Don't you understand by now he is nothing but a troll?


You did say that, even if it's not what you _meant_:



Brahmsianhorn said:


> Where does universal truth fit in?





Heck148 said:


> Where does it fit in with Beethoven?? in the score?? or in some pie-in-the-sky metaphysical concept??





Brahmsianhorn said:


> The meaning of the music. *The reason* we listen to Beethoven in the first place.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> If the question is a difficult, metaphysical or scientific one, then insisting upon clarity may not be helpful


Imo, this is when clarity is most necessary.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> You did say that, even if it's not what you _meant_:


I'm saying that the reason we listen to Beethoven represents universal truth. I wasn't saying that we listen IN ORDER to find universal truth.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I wasn't saying that we listen IN ORDER to find universal truth.


But you think we listen in order to find truth, don't you? I mean, we argued about this for some dozens of pages on the F thread and earlier here.

You can see why it sounded like you were saying we all listen to Beethoven to find truth. It's in line with things you've said in the past.



Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm saying that the reason we listen to Beethoven represents universal truth.


What does this even mean? I believe you've tied yourself in a knot trying to get out of a tight spot.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Imo, this is when clarity is most necessary.


Only if one can read past the first sentence and has the ability to not be bogged down by semantics.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Only if one can read past the first sentence and has the ability to not be bogged down by semantics.


I'm not in this thread to read your long irrationalists diatribes, you must keep that in mind. It's my preference for being here which represents universal truth.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> But you think we listen in order to find truth, don't you? I mean, we argued about this for some dozens of pages on the F thread and earlier here.
> 
> You can see why it sounded like you were saying we all listen to Beethoven to find truth. It's in line with things you've said in the past.
> 
> What does this even mean? I believe you've tied yourself in a knot trying to get out of a tight spot.


No I have never argued that! The truth is in the reason we listen to the music. The thing that makes it great and enduring for hundreds of years. Why we listen to Beethoven instead of some other composer. How hard is that to understand? This is what happens when a troll misquotes you over and over.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No I have never argued that! The truth is in the reason we listen to the music. Why we listen to Beethoven instead of some other composer. How hard is that to understand?.


It's actually very hard to understand. Like many other things you've said which make very little sense due to you having engaged in logical contortions to get out of a tight spot.

"The truth is in the reason we listen to the music".

Truth is...

"the thing that makes it great and enduring for hundreds of years"

Yet you claim you don't think truth is why we listen to the music??

What logical planet are you on, man?!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not in this thread to read your long irrationalists diatribes, you must keep that in mind. It's my preference for being here which represents universal truth.


You are being too harsh on yourself. I'm sure it will be waste of your time even if you read my "irrationalists diatribes".

You have already exceeded my expectation by taking one sentence out of context.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I am not "turning" anything nor was I "obliterate necessary distinctions". In fact, I am making a lot more distinctions than you are accusing me of. To be coherent requires an exorbitant amount of works which is misplaced in this discussion.
> 
> The Rationalist's idea of truth is by no means the "status quo" or the default definition when it comes to this difficult philosophical problem of "truth". Even if you have adopted the "status quo" way of thinking it does not mean other people should think in similar ways.
> 
> The problem is that people think in different ways and using vague, different concepts all the time. It is important to recognize the complexity and try to understand others, not to "normalize" other people's thinking into "crystal clarity" with your own way of understanding.
> 
> I have no doubt that you think deeply and clearly and apply language in a responsible way. But you have demonstrated strong philosophical presuppositions without being aware of them. I could ask you why "truth" must be universal and show why "universal truth" does not exist and it's a useless concept.
> 
> Even in the realm of mathematics, there are weak Platonists (who believe some fundamental axioms are arbitrary, ie subjective), strong Platonists, and the mathematician who believes the whole system of mathematics is arbitrary, ie subjective. You cannot masquerade such a philosophical view "truth is universal" as "no view of truth" or "a concern for clarity of thought" and goes on correcting others' idea of "inner truth", which is just as clear/obscure as "universal truth".
> 
> I will gladly rise up to the challenge. But please don't accuse me of obfuscation and please be gentle with the tribal language "us".
> 
> "Truth of faith" as "Trojan horse designed to corrupt thought" has a modern version in evolution scientist Richard Dawkins' theory of cultural meme. Dawkins argues that "religious faith" function similar to a virus in the what it infects, self-replicate, and propagate, even at the expense of its host. It operates at the level of information in the brain. You could definitely interpret "Truth of faith" in this light which is physical (information) that it's a form of culture virus encoded in the religious text.
> 
> Havard computer scientist Joshua Bach has a more favorable view of "faith", that "faith" is a form of collective operating system install on human brain to be able to have certain features of collective actions, similar to how brain functions as a collection of individual neurons. In the computational view, there is no clear distinction between individual consciousness (as computation) and "collective consciousness" (as social computation) so the "truth" lies in collective or the communal structure that emerges from faithful individuals, again, the religious text are encoded human software for a large consciousness to emerge (this is surprisingly close to some interpretation of the holy spirit). This view is also compatible with modern Game Theory in that some (desirable) social states are only possible when individuals in a society adopt certain values as if it's absolute (which can be shown with crystal clear mathematics but this is really not the place).
> 
> And please refrain from the naive notion of reading the religious text literally to understand what it represents. Let me entertain you with some quotes from Enlightenment thinkers on this
> 
> "How many unlikely things are there testified by people worthy of faith, which, if we cannot persuade ourselves absolutely to believe, we ought at least to leave them in suspense; for, to condemn them as impossible, is by a temerarious presumption to pretend to know the utmost bounds of possibility." This is Montaign recognizing that he would be committing another metaphysical form of "faith" if he doesn't leave the problem of faith in suspense.
> 
> "After having understood the whole nature of man. That a religion may be true, it must have knowledge of our nature. It ought to know its greatness and littleness, and the reason for both. What religion but the Christian has known this." This is a physicist and mathematician Pascal recognizing the role of "religion" is not incompatible with rational understanding of man. To the contrary, a "faith" that acknowledge the knowledge is more true than a "faith" that does not.
> 
> "I honoured our Theology and aspired as much as anyone to reach to heaven, but having learned to regard it as a most highly assured fact that the road is less open to the most ignorant than to the most learned, and that the revealed truths which conduct thither are quite above our intelligence, I should not have dared to submit them to the feebleness of my reasonings: and I thought that, in order to undertake to examine them and succeed in so doing, it was necessary to have some extraordinary assistance from above and to be more than a mere man." This is the great Descarte understanding the reality ("truth") that exists outside of rational reasoning (which is the subject of theology). The fact that there is a physical reality outside rationality is almost consensus. Whether or not we can perceive it is an open question.
> 
> "The most persistent outer relations which science believes in are never matters of experience at all but have to be disengaged from under experience by a process of elimination, that is, by ignoring conditions which are always present. The elementary laws of mechanics, physics, and chemistry are all of this sort. The principle of uniformity in nature is of this sort; it has to be sought under and in spite of the most rebellious appearances, and our conviction of its truth is far more like a religious faith than like assent to a demonstration." This is William James recognizing the fact that foundations of science require "faith", not only in theory but also in practice.
> 
> The "truth" you were referring to is just one of the many. But you are denying a non-universal version of the concept of the truth, a personal, inner truth, by claiming that "that's not the right definition" or implying that "that's a misuse of language". You are missing the point.
> 
> I don't think BH can express in simple and clear terms what he is trying to convey because this is a deep problem. You can explain Superstring theory in clear terms in three years, or you can explain Superstring theory in vague terms in five minutes. You can't have both for this old problem of "music as hidden truth". All you can do is to back him into a corner and make him "normalize" his position into something reasonable like what you have said which to me, is not what BH is trying to express. I don't feel compelled to know exactly what he meant.


You exhibit an extraordinary devotion to the defense of vagueness! I have to appreciate devotion in the abstract. But I confess to having insufficient patience for these ruminations when all I've been trying to do here is talk about what music can and cannot mean and convey in performance. Honestly, it isn't terribly difficult to understand the basic principles of that, but nothing can be understood if we wallow in obfuscating language.

The sentence that caught my eye in your compendium of quotes is "some (desirable) social states are only possible when individuals in a society adopt certain values _as if_ [they are] absolute." If the "as if" principle is being accepted as basic to the present discussion, it's no wonder argument gets us nowhere.

The use of the word "truth" in reference to music and performance signals a desire for philosophical consideration of the subject. But that can't proceed on the basis of undefined terms. "Truth," used in a sense other than its common one, has proved a term of obfuscation. If it could be eliminated, and the discussion begun again without it, we might very well get somewhere and be on cheerier terms. But if you insist on defending the sacred right to vagueness when clarity is wanted and requested, the grim game will continue until the participants are simply worn out.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> It's actually very hard to understand. Like many other things you've said which make very little sense due to you having engaged in logical contortions to get out of a tight spot.
> 
> "The truth is in the reason we listen to the music".
> 
> Truth is...
> 
> "the thing that makes it great and enduring for hundreds of years"
> 
> Yet you claim you don't think truth is why we listen to the music??
> 
> What logical planet are you on, man?!


We don't listen to Beethoven in order to seek truth, the truth is represented in our reason for appreciating Beethoven, what it is that makes the music worthy of our time.

As a performer, when you internalize this truth, that is when you make music that is special and memorable as opposed to stale, robotic, and mechanical.

I believe that not enough performers in our time engage in such a personal exploration and internalization of the music, and this is part of the disconnection with today's audiences. I think Toscanini's legacy of cold efficiency is partly responsible.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We don't listen to Beethoven in order to seek truth, the truth is represented in our reason for appreciating Beethoven, what it is that makes the music worthy of our time.


What an awefully convoluted amalgamation of words!

If being near someone I'm attracted to makes studying with them worthy of my time, is this not the reason I'm studying with them?!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> You exhibit an extraordinary devotion to the defense of vagueness! I have to appreciate devotion in the abstract. But I confess to having insufficient patience for these ruminations when all I've been trying to do here is talk about what music can and cannot mean and convey in performance. Honestly, it isn't terribly difficult to understand the basic principles of that, but nothing can be understood if we wallow in obfuscating language.
> 
> The sentence that caught my eye in your compendium of quotes is "some (desirable) social states are only possible when individuals in a society adopt certain values _as if_ [they are] absolute." If the "as if" principle is being accepted as basic to the present discussion, it's no wonder argument gets us nowhere.
> 
> The use of the word "truth" in reference to music and performance signals a desire for philosophical consideration of the subject. But that can't proceed on the basis of undefined terms. "Truth," used in a sense other than its common one, has proved a term of obfuscation. If it could be eliminated, and the discussion begun again without it, we might very well get somewhere and be on cheerier terms. But if you insist on defending the sacred right to vagueness when clarity is wanted and requested, the grim game will continue until the participants are simply worn out.


It's not the vagueness that I am defending. But whether we should apply such stern standard to a music lover expressing his internal feeling, in a perhaps, nonjudicious or obfuscating way. What BH is conveying is quite simple, and all these questionings are meaningless but a "grim game" as you have put it. There is nothing there to know.

I appreciate your effort to clarify and to share your way of looking at this problem of interpretation. But what BH's trying to express is tamed during this clarification, the sense of mystery and wonder and the sense of self-discovery, which I am sure some people here found ridiculous. That's fine, but this is an old idea and should not be treated as anathema.

The insistence on clarity has not resulted in progress but this endless war of semantics and personal feuds. If three or more people are questioning you at the same time, all the time, you will make mistakes, and a lot of them. What's the point really, is BH expressing a professional opinion? Does BH exert any pressure on forum members to impose his opinion? People (or even critics) are making hyperbolic claims about music all the time. Why is BH special?

And the trolling, people don't seem to have an issue with them (the moderator did step in eventually), yet they have a problem with someone's own idea of "truth"? Why does it even matter even if BH has the most outlandish interpretation of the "truth"? In my view, Roger's understanding of rationalism is just as troublesome, and he wears it like a badge, but that's him, I can perfectly understand that.

No, I am not defending vagueness. What I see is unnecessary demand for clarity in the place where clarity is uncalled for. BH has been vocal about where he stands for a long time and he is not going to give in. You are not going to catch a fish by climbing a tree.



Woodduck said:


> If the "as if" principle is being accepted as basic to the present discussion, it's no wonder argument gets us nowhere.


That's why I think you think in metaphysical terms as well (which is fine), in the modern interpretation of "value", "absolute value" does not have to exist metaphysically in order to work, as long as people behave "as if" values are absolute, certain values will work and appear to be absolute under fixed conditions. The nuance cannot be conveyed without the word "as if".

Similarly, even if an irrational number such as pi does not exist in the real world (it doesn't), engineers treat pi "as if" it exists, so we can approximate pi to an arbitrary degree without pi having ever existed in the real world.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The insistence on clarity has not resulted in progress but this endless war of semantics and personal feuds. If three or more people are questioning you at the same time, all the time, you will make mistakes, and a lot of them.


But BH has never admitted to a mistake, not that I've seen anyway. And certainly not nearly enough. Instead, he subtly shifts the wording of his positions, to turn an absurd statement into something more palatable. Sometimes, however, things don't go as planned and he says something even more absurd.

It's not the 'rationalists' who are the problem. So why don't you address your moralising to him and not us?! I suspect it's because you feel some pull towards his thesis, despite it being rationally indefensible.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> But BH has never admitted to a mistake, not that I've seen anyway. And certainly not nearly enough. Instead, he subtly shifts the wording of his positions, to turn an absurd statement into something more palatable. Sometimes, however, things don't go as planned and he says something even more absurd.
> 
> It's not the 'rationalists' who are the problem. So why don't you address your moralising to him and not us?! I suspect it's because you feel some pull towards his thesis, despite it being rationally indefensible.


You have made so many more mistakes, outrageous claims, and insults but I am still willing to give you a pass.

I suspect that it's because I tremble before your rational might.



RogerWaters said:


> It's not the 'rationalists' who are the problem. So why don't you address your moralising to him and not us?! I suspect it's because you feel some pull towards his thesis, despite it being rationally indefensible.


So it's about the "us rationalists" against BH and me? Please spare me with your tribal thinking.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

RogerWaters said:


> But BH has never admitted to a mistake, not that I've seen anyway. And certainly not nearly enough. Instead, he subtly shifts the wording of his positions, to turn an absurd statement into something more palatable. Sometimes, however, things don't go as planned and he says something even more absurd.
> 
> It's not the 'rationalists' who are the problem. So why don't you address your moralising to him and not us?! I suspect it's because you feel some pull towards his thesis, despite it being rationally indefensible.


I am not required to "admit" to something I have not done. You cannot misinterpret me and then accuse me of being caught in a lie. I am entitled to clarify what I said, and more often than not it is the interpretation of my words that has been lacking, not the words themselves.

(You seem to be on a witch hunt, and I am not sure why. Should we tie a boulder to my leg and toss me in a lake to see what happens?)

Today, not only did I once again have to correct Heck's misstatements, but I produced a post from two months ago where I said the exact same thing in response to his misstatements. So you cannot say I have not been consistent or that I have been weaseling my way around. I have been painfully consistent.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not the vagueness that I am defending. But whether we should apply such stern standard to a music lover expressing his internal feeling, in a perhaps, nonjudicious or obfuscating way. What BH is conveying is quite simple, and all these questionings are meaningless but a "grim game" as you have put it. There is nothing there to know.


If what BH is conveying is simple, why have a number of intelligent people been led astray by it? And yes, you have defended vagueness quite explicitly, and are still doing it. Calling a request for clear meaning meaningless is quite an effective tactic.



> I appreciate your effort to clarify and to share your way of looking at this problem of interpretation. But what BH's trying to express is tamed during this clarification, the sense of mystery and wonder and the sense of self-discovery, which I am sure some people here found ridiculous. That's fine, but this is an old idea and should not be treated as anathema.


"Tamed"? A "sense of self-discovery"? What is the "old idea"? Who finds _what _ridiculous? Talk about vagueness.



> The insistence on clarity has not resulted in progress but this endless war of semantics and personal feuds.


Well, yes. If a request for clarity gets no results, there will be no progress. But I don't see how asking people to define their terms is a matter of "semantics."



> If three or more people are questioning you at the same time, all the time, you will make mistakes, and a lot of them.


Who is "you"?



> What's the point really, is BH expressing a professional opinion? Does BH exert any pressure on forum members to impose his opinion? People (or even critics) are making hyperbolic claims about music all the time. Why is BH special?


It appears to be you who wants to make BH "special" by exempting him from being challenged on his terminology.



> And the trolling, people don't seem to have an issue with them (the moderator did step in eventually), yet they have a problem with someone's own idea of "truth"?


I do have an issue with trolling, which is why I don't do it.



> Why does it even matter even if BH has the most outlandish interpretation of the "truth"? In my view, Roger's understanding of rationalism is just as troublesome, and he wears it like a badge, but that's him, I can perfectly understand that.


Why is it necessary to try to judge people's philosophical pedigree? I just want to know what they're talking about.



> No, I am not defending vagueness. What I see is unnecessary demand for clarity in the place where clarity is uncalled for.


Who decides when clarity is called for? Do you decide that for others who are looking for it?



> BH has been vocal about where he stands for a long time and he is not going to give in. You are not going to catch a fish by climbing a tree.


Yes, he certainly has been vocal for a long time. It needed 621 posts to accumulate here for BH to impart to me a comprehensible notion of what he means by "truth." He wrote:

_"Think of a prophet or priest-like person speaking extemporaneously. They may have no idea what they are going to say. But in that moment of Zen, the truth appears before them as they start speaking. They are aiming for truth, and nuggets of truth pour out of them. It is no different from a conductor like Furtwangler experiencing the music anew as he is conducting it, experiencing the "truth" of it anew."_

"Truth" appears here to be some process or product of revelation which occurs in an individual who is cultivating an attitude of receptiveness. When the revelation comes, it is experienced as "truth." I'm not sure that this is _everything_ BH means by truth, but it's at least something fairly definite. I don't think it's a reasonable application of the word "truth," but if we think "subjective truth" is not an oxymoron then I guess it'll have to do. In any case I think I'm going to leave it at that.


----------



## Heck148

BH has corrected nothing...he has changed his position so many times he's like a chameleon: 
<<there is truth, there isn't truth, the truth is in our desire to listen, it is why we listen, but i never said there was truth, furtwangler experienced the "truth", i never said that WF sought the "truth", those conductors who don't experience WF's "truth" are trained monkeys, only capable of metronomic time-beating>>...
Roger and Woodduck, with infinite and admirable patience, have documented all of the variations and permutations of BH's arguments, which are all over the map. He'll scream bloody murder, but the evidence is all there. His back-peddling, premise-changing is understandable as his position falls apart, but so is the criticism he is facing....he painted himself into the corner.


----------



## RogerWaters

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I am not required to "admit" to something I have not done. You cannot misinterpret me and then accuse me of being caught in a lie. I am entitled to clarify what I said, and more often than not it is the interpretation of my words that has been lacking, not the words themselves.
> 
> (You seem to be on a witch hunt, and I am not sure why. Should we tie a boulder to my leg and toss me in a lake to see what happens?)
> 
> Today, not only did I once again have to correct Heck's misstatements, but I produced a post from two months ago where I said the exact same thing in response to his misstatements. So you cannot say I have not been consistent or that I have been weaseling my way around. I have been painfully consistent.


Let me take a different approach.

Given quite a few at the very least moderately intelligent people are disagreeing with you so much, why do you think that is? If you are right and we are wrong, what do you think gives us *the appearance* you are wrong?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> BH has corrected nothing...he has changed his position so many times he's like a chameleon:
> <<there is truth, there isn't truth, the truth is in our desire to listen, it is why we listen, but i never said there was truth, furtwangler experienced the "truth", i never said that WF sought the "truth", those conductors who don't experience WF's "truth" are trained monkeys, only capable of metronomic time-beating>>...
> Roger and Woodduck, with infinite and admirable patience, have documented all of the variations and permutations of BH's arguments, which are all over the map. He'll scream bloody murder, but the evidence is all there. His back-peddling, premise-changing is understandable as his position falls apart, but so is the criticism he is facing....he painted himself into the corner.


Like Furtwangler, my attempts to explain truth may be difficult to understand, but they contain 1000 times more truth than your simple-minded BS, and you know it.

You:










Me:


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Like Furtwangler, my attempts to explain truth may be difficult to understand,


Lol!! No, they are not hard to "understand"...they are just wrong, and inconsistent, as shown. It's as easy as a turkey shoot.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Mr. Woodduck, I respect your input, but such demand for clarity is really uncalled for (it's a suggestion, not a demand). Let me demonstrate it for you why it is not great to talk this way.



Woodduck said:


> If what BH is conveying is simple, why have a number of intelligent people been led astray by it?


Who are these "number of intelligent people"? In what way are they "intelligent"? How are they led astray? All of these are absolutely meaningless to me (and it's on you).

Let me show why what BH is conveying is simple, even if I am a fool, I can understand BH is saying:

1. I love Furtwangler
2. I had mystical experience of listening to Furtwangler
3. I think Furtwangler's Beethoven is better than Toscanini's

How can intelligent people be "let astray" by it?



Woodduck said:


> And yes, you have defended vagueness quite explicitly, and are still doing it.


What do mean by "vagueness"? Can you define it? How is any of my argument defending "vagueness"? You are making unsubstantiated assertions with nothing to back it up here.



Woodduck said:


> Calling a request for clear meaning meaningless is quite an effective tactic.


When there is no more meaning to be gained, requesting for a clear meaning is meaningless.

I am not referring to your good faith attempts, of course.



Woodduck said:


> "Tamed"? A "sense of self-discovery"? What is the "old idea"? Who finds _what _ridiculous?


*Tamed*: BH now holds that



> We don't listen to Beethoven in order to seek truth, the truth is represented in our reason for appreciating Beethoven, what it is that makes the music worthy of our time.


"Truth" here means: the reason why we love Beethoven

What an wild, outrageous idea he has!

*Sense of self-discovery*: after a great concert or a great recording

1. I feel like a better person
2. I know myself better
3. I feel like X composer speaks to my heart
4. The music hit my soft spot that I am not even aware of
5. I am full of drive that's not present before
...

*Old idea*: music as a form of fundamental truth

1. World-soul is musical (Plato:Timaeus)
2. Celetrial-body movements produces musical concordances (Aristotle: on the Heavens)
3. Musical scales expressed through mathematics that's (Aristotle: Metaphysics)
4. World as will and music as the copy of will (Schopenhauer:Will as the World and its Representation)
5. Music as the universal will, image of the universe (Nietzche:Birth of Tragedy)

It's old and it's an idea, so it's an old idea.

*Who finds what ridiculous?*: Roger, Heck, and David (who) all find BH's position that music is related to "truth" "ridiculous", "nonsensical", "Baloney", "Buffon"



Woodduck said:


> Talk about vagueness.


Are you suggesting that I need to attach a lexicon like one the above and link to a site full of reference and footnote every time I post to make sure everything is clear for you? Provided that you don't find it too long to read?



Woodduck said:


> Well, yes. If a request for clarity gets no results, there will be no progress. But I don't see how asking people to define their terms is a matter of "semantics."


Please define "clarity" for me. Your standard of clarity seems awfully vague to me, because things I find relatively clear are totally "vague" to you. And things that are "clear" to you seems to be vague to me. (Is this enough of a matter of "semantic" to you?)



> If three or more people are questioning you at the same time, all the time, you will make mistakes, and a lot of them.





Woodduck said:


> Who is "you"?


I am surprised that a clear, seasoned, witty writer such as you are not aware of the generic you. That really made me proud as a struggling non-native speaker.

"In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person, as opposed to its standard use as the second-person pronoun. Generic you can often be used in the place of one, the third-person singular impersonal pronoun, in colloquial speech."



Woodduck said:


> It appears to be you who wants to make BH "special" by exempting him from being challenged on his terminology.


I am guilt of it, since no one is exempt from being challenged on his/her terminology. I will start challenging your use of terminology, all the time, how do you feel about that?



Woodduck said:


> I do have an issue with trolling, which is why I don't do it.


I do have an issue with murder, which is why I don't do it.



> Why does it even matter even if BH has the most outlandish interpretation of the "truth"? In my view, Roger's understanding of rationalism is just as troublesome, and he wears it like a badge, but that's him, I can perfectly understand that.





Woodduck said:


> Why is it necessary to try to judge people's philosophical pedigree? I just want to know what they're talking about.


It's not. How is this related to "judge people's philosophical pedigree"? You don't even care to provide an argument for your accussion.

If Roger has the wrong idea of rationalism, I state my case, and leave it at that. But if BH has the wrong idea of truth, he has to defend the same things over and over for weeks.



Woodduck said:


> Who decides when clarity is called for? Do you decide that for others who are looking for it?


Everyone who participates. It's not within my right and my power to decide. It's a SUGGESTION.



Woodduck said:


> Yes, he certainly has been vocal for a long time. It needed 621 posts to accumulate here for BH to impart to me a comprehensible notion of what he means by "truth." He wrote:
> 
> _"Think of a prophet or priest-like person speaking extemporaneously. They may have no idea what they are going to say. But in that moment of Zen, the truth appears before them as they start speaking. They are aiming for truth, and nuggets of truth pour out of them. It is no different from a conductor like Furtwangler experiencing the music anew as he is conducting it, experiencing the "truth" of it anew."_
> 
> "Truth" appears here to be some process or product of revelation which occurs in an individual who is cultivating an attitude of receptiveness. When the revelation comes, it is experienced as "truth." I'm not sure that this is _everything_ BH means by truth, but it's at least something fairly definite. I don't think it's a reasonable application of the word "truth," but if we think "subjective truth" is not an oxymoron then I guess it'll have to do. In any case I think I'm going to leave it at that.


He is talking about a phenomenological experience (as in it happens from inside his consciousness) put in religious terms. I wouldn't read too much into it because:

You can't understand people's conscious experience from outside (from logic and text), you can only understand it by replicating a similar experience from inside (as a conscious experience that gives rise to a similar description).

For this to be meaningful, in my opinion, you have to recognize BH's subjectivity and be empathetic, not challenging the definitions of his words or poking logical holes in his arguments. Is it so surprising that words cannot fully descript the vividness and intensity of such experience?

If you find this vague, then I can't help you any further while you are just throwing questions and unsubstantiated assertions at me.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Musical experience mostly belongs to this realm outside rationality.


Did anyone raise a question about this while I was asleep? Or were there more than enough points of conflict that another wasn't deemed necessary?

Given Barbebleu's wondering about why we are fascinated with 'explanations', I won't ask for one. I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that. If that's UTM's opinion about musical experience, I'll 'empathise' (since it's a claim that is often made by listeners about their experience), but it doesn't tally with my opinion that musical experience belongs 'inside rationality'. And that whilst music may not be 'tangible', it is 'audible' (see Brahmsianhorn #690) and very amenable to rational experience and explanation.


----------



## RogerWaters

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For this to be meaningful, in my opinion, you have to recognize BH's subjectivity and be empathetic, not challenging the definitions of his words or poking logical holes in his arguments.?


If you want to get all moralistic, why should BH's interlocutors extend such empathy for someone who does not extend the same to his interlocutors?

You insist in seeing him as some kind of poor invalid. Does he even want to be treated like this?

It's like 'oh don't worry about Joe, he's just the special kid in the class who always ***** his pants'


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You can't understand people's conscious experience from outside (from logic and text), you can only understand it by replicating a similar experience from inside (as a conscious experience that gives rise to a similar description).


Underlined so very important. (I needn't bother with the rest of the post I presume.)

I can 'understand' people's conscious experience if they explain it to me with sufficient accuracy that I can then repeat it back and they concur that my account tallies with their experience.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Did anyone raise a question about this while I was asleep? Or were there more than enough points of conflict that another wasn't deemed necessary?
> 
> Given Barbebleu's wondering about why we are fascinated with 'explanations', I won't ask for one. I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that. If that's UTM's opinion about musical experience, I'll 'empathise' (since it's a claim that is often made by listeners about their experience), but it doesn't tally with my opinion that musical experience belongs 'inside rationality'. And that whilst music may not be 'tangible', it is 'audible' (see Brahmsianhorn #690) and very amenable to rational experience and explanation.


My opinion? Yes but no.

That's backed by some scientific facts, neuroimaging shows that most of the neuron firing during music listening happens in the right side of the brain, mostly the three layers of the auditory cortex of the right hemisphere, as opposed to the auditory cortex on the left (which in charge of speech recognition). And many parts of the brain that are engaged during the process are not involved in the language/logical thinking (including unconscious pathways). In short, the actual experience happens mostly outside your rational faculties.

Your various pathways that are in charge of logical thinking, and in charge of putting the memory into words, are clumps of neurons that were unlikely to be fired during the listening. So the part of the brain that in charge of analyzing your music experience mostly did not experience the music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Underlined so very important. (I needn't bother with the rest of the post I presume.)
> 
> I can 'understand' people's conscious experience if they explain it to me with sufficient accuracy that I can then repeat it back and they concur that my account tallies with their experience.


Yes you are right, but you still need some kind of empathetic thinking (you brain has a region for that).

This problem is apparent because we cannot understand what an Artificial Intelligence "experiences" from the outside, even the top scientists at Google who made these AI cannot understand that. This is related to the Hard problem of consciousness.

The amount of information being processed during listing to music is tremendous when compared to what people say or write about them. They are not on the same order of magnitude.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> My opinion? Yes but no.
> 
> That's backed by some scientific facts, neuroimaging shows that most of the neuron firing during music listening happens in the right side of the brain, mostly the three layers of the auditory cortex of the right hemisphere, as opposed to the auditory cortex on the left (which in charge of speech recognition). And many parts of the brain that are engaged during the process are not involved in the language/logical thinking (including unconscious pathways). In short, the actual experience happens mostly outside your rational faculties.
> 
> Your various pathways that are in charge of logical thinking, and in charge of putting the memory into words, are clumps of neurons that were unlikely to be fired during the listening. So the part of the brain that in charge of analyzing your music experience mostly did not experience the music.


Point me to the research please. In the meantime, what you explain does nothing more than suggest that what you and I understand by the term 'rationality' are different things. If you were to elaborate on what you mean by 'this realm outside rationality', I might have a fighting chance of understanding what you really mean (as opposed to what I think you mean, which might be a wholly incorrect inference).


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Yes you are right, but you still need some kind of empathetic thinking (you brain has a region for that).
> 
> This problem is apparent because we cannot understand what an Artificial Intelligence "experiences" from the outside, even the top scientists at Google who made these AI cannot understand that. This is related to the Hard problem of consciousness.
> 
> The amount of information being processed during listing to music is tremendous when compared to what people say or write about them. They are not on the same order of magnitude.


Ah, I think the word 'understand' is at issue here. What I think you mean is that we cannot exactly _replicate _someone else's conscious experiences inside our own heads.


----------



## Eclectic Al

A couple of remarks.

1)

I think the use of the word truth in all this is a way of making something straightforward seem profound. As a parallel, we can go from:
- The cat is black
to
- It is true that the cat is black
to
- Truth is represented by the statement that the cat is black.

The last formulation sounds very grand, but it is either simply a ridiculous way of saying that the cat is black or a confusing statement designed to make it seem like a rather grand "thing" is floating around beyond the underlying simple claim that the cat is black.

2)
I don't see why it is at all puzzling that listening to music makes many people feel have deep feelings. After all, our brains work as they do, and music has developed in conjunction with that. If music did not interact with enough people's brain functions in a way which moves them then it would likely never have developed in the way it has. Why would it?
In particular, our hearing is a key part of the way in which we communicate. When people speak to us, we interpret their sounds as meaningful. It does not surprise me that the way we feel about an art form which is wrapped up in hearing is that we have a deep sense of meaningfulness.
Any deep objective meaning in music would be related to it potentially telling us something about how our brains and minds work from a scientific perspective. As a separate matter, from the perspective of lived experience we may get a feeling of deep "truth" when listening to music (which explains why it continues so widely in human society), but abstracting that feeling into a claim that there is some corresponding deep "truth" out there seem entirely unjustified.

By the way, I do not think that the above view in any way demeans the feeling we get when listening to music - quite the reverse. For me, accepting that music has a direct connection to how we feel is way more profound (to use that word) than any attempt to filter it through a detour into pseudo-philosophical musings about truth.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> By the way, I do not think that the above view in any way demeans the feeling we get when listening to music - quite the reverse. For me, accepting that music has a direct connection to how we feel is way more profound (to use that word) than any attempt to filter it through a detour into pseudo-philosophical musings about truth.


Precisely so. Thanks


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Point me to the research please. In the meantime, what you explain does nothing more than suggest that what you and I understand by the term 'rationality' are different things. If you were to elaborate on what you mean by 'this realm outside rationality', I might have a fighting chance of understanding what you really mean (as opposed to what I think you mean, which might be a wholly incorrect inference).


You can just google academic search "music" and "auditory cortex" or "neuroscience". This is an area of active research. Most of the journal articles have pay wall.

Let me quote Zatorre (2005) from Nature (a good and accessible article)



> One of the striking things about the neurobiological processing of speech is that it mostly takes place in the left half of the brain. It has therefore been natural to ask whether this asymmetry is mirrored in a right-hemisphere predominance for music. There are also many case reports of individuals who have lost their speech functions after extensive damage to speech regions in the left cerebral hemisphere, yet continue to show intact high-level musical function (for example, the Russian composer Vissarion Shebalin4).





> But why should music, an abstract pattern of sound, have any commonality at all with such survival-related systems? It is a stretch to suggest that music is essential for life or reproduction. However, perhaps this research is beginning to illuminate the complex relation between cognitive-perceptual systems that analyse and represent the outside world, and evolutionarily ancient neural systems involved in assessing the value of a stimulus relative to survival and deciding what action to take. Maybe music, and all art in a way, manages to transcend mere perception precisely because it contacts our more primordial neurobiology.


As mathematical logic has shown, the realm of rationality is precisely the realm of formal language (which generalizes language and mathematics). How the brain does various logical reasoning exactly is still an area of active research, I believe, but in popular science term, it's mostly in the left brain, along with language and speech (as demonstrated in various split-brain experiment), it also involves the prefrontal cortex (which develops much later in life). Child music prodigies can be very good at music but poor at logical reasoning.

In addition, rationality is not required for intelligence, as shown by the new wave of artificial intelligences. These AI (neural networks) are far superior than human in many areas but have no rational capabilities (they cannot think rationally or logically). Many would argue that they can "experience music" because consciousness is computational (search computational theory of mind), which seems to be the consensus forming right now.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Mr. Woodduck, I respect your input, but such demand for clarity is really uncalled for (it's a suggestion, not a demand). Let me demonstrate it for you why it is not great to talk this way.


Ugh. And I had just decided to quit this already tired exchange (sigh). OK, shoot.



> Who are these "number of intelligent people"? In what way are they "intelligent"? How are they led astray? All of these are absolutely meaningless to me (and it's on you).


Give us a break. Are you suggesting that the individuals trying to figure out what BH was saying and those challenging his assertions are _unintelligent?_ And that the very idea that they might actually be bright is _meaningless_ to you? Who among us do you regard as unintelligent? Have you got hold of our IQ scores?



> Let me show why what BH is conveying is simple, even if I am a fool, I can understand BH is saying:
> 
> 1. I love Furtwangler
> 2. I had mystical experience of listening to Furtwangler
> 3. I think Furtwangler's Beethoven is better than Toscanini's
> 
> How can intelligent people be "let astray" by it?


If he had said only that (and he never said he had a "mystical" experience, to my recollection) I doubt that anyone would have challenged him, although some might have wondered about the term "mystical," another one of those words people like to throw around to connote something terribly deep. But that's your word. Your attempt to reduce his statements to this is, if I may say so, more unfair to him than anything I've said. I've at least respected him enough to ask what he meant, rather than make something up and put words in his mouth.

I could point to any number of statements by BH that raise real questions as to his meaning.



> What do mean by "vagueness"? Can you define it? How is any of my argument defending "vagueness"? You are making unsubstantiated assertions with nothing to back it up here.


I'm happy to substantiate my assertions. You said that it was unfair of me to ask BH for clarification, and that clarity wasn't even appropriate. You said, among other similar things, "I am not defending vagueness. What I see is unnecessary demand for clarity in the place where clarity is uncalled for." So you've decided, unilaterally, that clarity is uncalled for while claiming not to be defending unclarity, i.e., vagueness.

This hurts my brain.



> Please define "clarity" for me. Your standard of clarity seems awfully vague to me, because things I find relatively clear are totally "vague" to you. And things that are "clear" to you seems to be vague to me. (Is this enough of a matter of "semantic" to you?)


Clarity _n. _ The quality of being coherent and intelligible.



> I am surprised that a clear, seasoned, witty writer such as you are not aware of the generic you. That really made me proud as a struggling non-native speaker.
> 
> "In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic, impersonal, or indefinite you is the use of the pronoun you to refer to an unspecified person, as opposed to its standard use as the second-person pronoun. Generic you can often be used in the place of one, the third-person singular impersonal pronoun, in colloquial speech."


Thanks, professor.  Let me just suggest that the generic "you" needs to be used judiciously. Some people may prefer not to be included.



> I am guilt of it, since no one is exempt from being challenged on his/her terminology. I will start challenging your use of terminology, all the time, how do you feel about that?


Is that a threat?



> If Roger has the wrong idea of rationalism, I state my case, and leave it at that. But if BH has the wrong idea of truth, he has to defend the same things over and over for weeks.


If you were careful to note the progression of this discussion, you would notice that I entered it only days ago, and that my first questions and comments were addressed not to Brahmsianhorn but to DavidA, Heck148, RogerWaters, and you.

I do think thet there's been unnecessarily harsh and cutting language in this thread. I've tried to maintain an air of sobriety. Do you think I've failed?



> For this to be meaningful, in my opinion, you have to recognize BH's subjectivity and be empathetic, not challenging the definitions of his words or poking logical holes in his arguments. Is it so surprising that words cannot fully descript the vividness and intensity of such experience?


When I have experiences that words can't describe, I generally don't try to describe them in words. And if I use words that confuse people, I look for better words when asked to. Words are good for two things: fixing our thoughts in our minds, and communicating them to others. When the second fails and we can't repair the situation, we can find other things to do with our time. I can, anyway.



> If you find this vague, then I can't help you any further while you are just throwing questions and unsubstantiated assertions at me.


You've been clear enough. You want to be the caretaker of people you sympathize with, and for some reason you think BH needs to be protected from me. Does he think he does? Have you asked him?

Well, my manner of pursuing a topic of discussion is what it is. I feel no need to justify it.

Does anything more need to be said? May I go to bed now?


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> As mathematical logic has shown, the realm of rationality is precisely the realm of formal language (which generalizes language and mathematics).


Not according to Lexico.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/rationality

You can think about music, you can emote to it, you can talk about it - the same as any other physical experience. That makes it part of the rational realm.

Neither of you puotes tell me anything about the query I raised.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Ah, I think the word 'understand' is at issue here. What I think you mean is that we cannot exactly _replicate _someone else's conscious experiences inside our own heads.


No, it's simply impossible to replicate someone else's conscious experience. By replicating, I mean in an approximate fashion. If the music engaged the primal part of your brain, that makes your spine tingle, then you know when you are having a similar conscious experience.

From a theoretical point of view, if the information processing in your brain is almost the same as that of Beethoven (which is unknown of course) during a musical experience, then at that moment, you are Beethoven (or Beethoven's consciousness is "resurrected" at that moment). It's easier to understand this insight if you read into the computational theory of the mind, which seems to be the predominant theory right now.

Rationality is a complex and ambiguous concept with much different meanings in different fields. The concept people are looking for really is "formal language", which contains mathematics, logic, and language (it's exhaustive and it's mathematically crystal clear).


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> Not according to Lexico.
> 
> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/rationality
> 
> You can think about music, you can emote to it, you can talk about it - the same as any other physical experience. That makes it part of the rational realm.


You can only think about the memory of musical experience, not the musical experience itself. Experience is the neuron firing at the moment, memory is how these neuron firing leads to a strengthening of neural links in various regions that are in charge of different types of memories.

Please don't take the quote to the extreme. Rationality can be involved in the musical experience. And can always be applied to the memory of the musical experience. But this does not imply that the realm of rationality (as the realm of formal language) can map to the musical experience. It's more and more unlikely to be true, in my view.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> No, it's simply impossible to replicate someone else's conscious experience. By replicating, I mean in an approximate fashion. If the music engaged the primal part of your brain, that makes your spine tingle, then you know when you are having a similar conscious experience.
> 
> From a theoretical point of view, if the information processing in your brain is almost the same as that of Beethoven (which is unknown of course) during a musical experience, then at that moment, you are Beethoven (or Beethoven's consciousness is "resurrected" at that moment). It's easier to understand this insight if you read into the computational theory of the mind, which seems to be the predominant theory right now.


"No", you disagree with me...or "No" that's right, you can't replicate...?


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You can only think about the memory of musical experience, not the musical experience itself. Experience is the neuron firing at the moment, memory is how these neuron firing leads to a strengthening of neural links in various regions that are in charge of different types of memories.


But that goes for any experience - cutting your finger, watching a movie, eating a meal. The neurons firing are the "experience", the thinking that follows - split second afterwards - is all memory (if I get your explanation right). So why is music special in this regard?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> But that goes for any experience - cutting your finger, watching a movie, eating a meal. The neurons firing are the "experience", the thinking that follows - split second afterwards - is all memory (if I get your explanation right). So why is music special in this regard?


I agree with you with not "exactly replicating".

And you are right, that's why rationality is only a limited part of what the Brain experience and what the Brain is "thinking". When you drive a car, you don't need to think rationally or being self-aware, there are parts of the brain that is "thinking", independent of your self-awareness (prefrontal cortex), so really your brain is like a symphony, there is no "I".

The rational, thinking self is a story-teller. Many experiments have shown robust results that decisions are made before you made the "conscious choice", so the "conscious choice" is an ex-post rationalization of the decision made unconsciously (see Dennett's Consciousness Explained)

What made music extraordinary is the following (the greeks realized this): the music text is extremely precise, regular, and mathematical. It is mathematical because the diatonic scale which is formed based on exact mathematical ratios, the harmonies are also formed in ratios, the rhythms are exact and regular and so on and so on. But the experience of these "mathematics" is intuitive and primal, they correspond to a whole spectrum emotions, feelings, mood with very high fidelity.

Furthermore, when you are listening to a great piece of music, the richness of the experience goes beyond say "eating a meal" (more parts of your brain are engaged). Watching a movie is different because you see representations of the physical world, in music you don't see that, there is no counterpart of the musical experience in the physical world.


----------



## Guest

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I agree with you with not "exactly replicating".
> 
> And you are right, that's why rationality is only a limited part of what the Brain experience and what the Brain is "thinking". When you drive a car, you don't need to think rationally or being self-aware, there are parts of the brain that is "thinking", independent of your self-awareness (prefrontal cortex), so really your brain is like a symphony, there is no "I".
> 
> The rational, thinking self is a story-teller. Many experiments have shown robust results that decisions are made before you made the "conscious choice", so the "conscious choice" is an ex-post rationalization of the decision made unconsciously (see Dennett's Consciousness Explained)
> 
> What made music extraordinary is the following (the greeks realized this): the music text is extremely precise, regular, and mathematical. It is mathematical because the diatonic scale which is formed based on exact mathematical ratios, the harmonies are also formed in ratios, the rhythms are exact and regular and so on and so on. But the experience of these "mathematics" is intuitive and primal, they correspond to a whole spectrum emotions, feelings, mood with very high fidelity.
> 
> Furthermore, when you are listening to a great piece of music, the richness of the experience goes beyond say "eating a meal" (more parts of your brain are engaged). Watching a movie is different because you see representations of the physical world, in music you don't see that, there is no counterpart of the musical experience in the physical world.


So, you're putting in opposition to each other the rational realm and the instinctive/emotional realm? When you refer to musical experience being 'beyond the realm of rationality', you're not envisaging musical experience being, therefore, in the 'ineffable/transcendent' realm?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

MacLeod said:


> So, you're putting in opposition to each other the rational realm and the instinctive/emotional realm? When you refer to musical experience being 'beyond the realm of rationality', you're not envisaging musical experience being, therefore, in the 'ineffable/transcendent' realm?


Yes, that's fair. I didn't set up the opposition, but many split-brain experiments have shown there are at least two "you" in your brain (you can find the discussion everywhere on the Internet). When playing or listening to music, it is generally better not to be self-aware or to think hard. Try a listening test, you do better in general if you "think less". Applying rationality is my job so I am hyper-aware of when rationality is not involved. So I say yes, for the most part, the musical experience belong to the "ineffable" realm.

Whether or not that's transcendental, really depends on whether consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon or something else, let's call that transcendental. This mind-body problem, or the hard problem of consciousness, is the greatest mystery of the current era (it might be an unanswerable question and we don't know that). If you are a hardcore materialist like me, then you have to adopt the view that we are just "zombies" (a proper philosophical term) with the illusion of consciousness. If you think that consciousness is not an illusion, then you probably still implicitly adopts a Christian view of the soul.

Either way, music experience corresponds to a reality that is outside the grasp of rationality, because to apply rationality you have to treat music as an object but music experience can only occur with subjectivity. Even Rationality itself seems to be a feature of our brain rather than the fundamental reality because rationality has fundamental "holes" that cannot be filled (Godel's theorem). There are leading cognitive scientist that rejects the reality as we perceive and understand (Donald Hoffman, Joshua Bach) for very good theoretical reasons. Therefore, in my view, I think the old idea that music is related to a more fundamental reality makes a lot of sense. That reality does not have to be transcendental (as nonmaterialistic) but it could.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wooduck and others, I have a very simple way to break this argument down:
> 
> Is the question "What does this music mean to me?" relevant to a performing musician?
> 
> I say yes. Furtwängler says yes. Bruno Walter says yes.
> 
> Toscanini says unequivocally no. Heck says unequivocally no.
> 
> THAT is the debate, simplified.


This post summarized the entire debate.

If music can mean something to you - regardless of whether you can express that meaning in words or not - you are personalizing the music. You are relating to the music. You are being the music.

Our ability to personalize the music indicates a universal truth to the music. Otherwise we would not be able to relate to it personally. It would have no meaning to us.

If you believe that music is just a set of instructions that you follow, that implies it has no meaning to you. You are not expressing the music. You are instead "being expressive." You are not feeling the music. You are merely "accurately" telling the audience what the composer wrote on the paper. You are not internalizing it. You are depersonalizing it.

You are saying, "I do not speak for the music, the music speaks for itself." You are disconnecting yourself from the music. It does not apply to you personally. Thus the music is reduced merely to something the composer said, and NOT something that is universally true in any way.

I believe the second way is antithetical to the point of performance. The music has meaning, or we would have no reason to perform it.

It is the duty of the performer to internalize the meaning of the music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Our ability to personalize the music indicates a universal truth to the music. Otherwise we would not be able to relate to it personally. It would have no meaning to us.


This is indeed the heart of (at least part of) this debate.

The statements which I have quoted above, however, are either meaningless or include a non-sequitur.

"Our ability to personalise the music" indicates that the way our brains function causes us to experience feelings when listening to the music. There is no reason to claim that it indicates a universal truth, although it may indicate something fairly general about brain function (as UTM extensively notes). What is your justification for your claim that this ability we have indicates a universal truth?

If we didn't value the experience of music in some way then we would never have developed music (as a human activity) in the way that we have, and we wouldn't keep on doing it. Just because we engage in an activity which (inevitably by virtue of us carrying on doing it) we value for the experiences which it gives us just not imply anything whatsoever about universal truth.


----------



## JAS

Is there any known culture that does not have a tradition of sound that serves the general function of music? (There might be differences in what that music actually is.) Does that indicate a universal, or nearly universal function of some kind for music?


----------



## larold

_Our ability to personalize the music indicates a universal truth to the music._

I can't sign onto that. Arguments about "truth" create a cast in stone format; art is subjective, not truth.


----------



## Enthusiast

I must confess I have not the patience or interest to read through all posts in this thread but I see the word "truth" everywhere, usually preceded by the definite article (_the _truth). Then lots of people say there can be no truth in art (because they feel art is subjective .. a word I have become heartily sick of since joining this forum!). But what if the talk was about a truth rather than the truth? Good art does tell us a truth. Great art tells us profound truths. No work, artist or performer can have exclusive access to _*the*_ truth but the word truth still have a vital role to play in describing art. I haven't read the thread closely enough but can anyone disagree with that? And, if not, is it not the case that noted performers in classical music - including Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan, Harnoncourt, Norrington, Beecham, Walter, Celibidache, and all the others - do regularly present truths about the music they are performing even if none of them cal tell us the truth about it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

JAS said:


> Is there any known culture that does not have a tradition of sound that serves the general function of music? (There might be differences in what that music actually is.) Does that indicate a universal, or nearly universal function of some kind for music?


It's a great question, and one for anthropologists, I guess.

Only too happy with the idea that there could be a universal or near universal function for music. I can well imagine it functions in many, many cultures as part of social ritual - it certainly still does in Western culture today, given its common presence at weddings, funerals, public functions, etc.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Enthusiast said:


> I must confess I have not the patience or interest to read through all posts in this thread but I see the word "truth" everywhere, usually preceded by the definite article (_the _truth). Then lots of people say there can be no truth in art (because they feel art is subjective .. a word I have become heartily sick of since joining this forum!). But what if the talk was about a truth rather than the truth? Good art does tell us a truth. Great art tells us profound truths. No work, artist or performer can have exclusive access to _*the*_ truth but the word truth still have a vital role to play in describing art. I haven't read the thread closely enough but can anyone disagree with that? And, if not, is it not the case that noted performers in classical music - including Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan, Harnoncourt, Norrington, Beecham, Walter, Celibidache, and all the others - do regularly present truths about the music they are performing even if none of them cal tell us the truth about it.


It's probably one of the things which this somewhat tedious debate has been circling around.

I find the word "truth" unhelpful in this context, but I could go along with something like "a truth", where "my truth" (which is "a truth") means that "my experience of a performance is that it is a true representation of my idea of the piece". If we take a dictionary definition of truth as "that which is in accordance with fact or reality" and you take reality to mean my reality as I experience it, then it's not too much of a stretch to use the word truth here (although, as I said, I find it unhelpful), relating to the existence of a perceived match between a thing in my mind and an actual performance.

Sometimes it seems like there is close to agreement about something like that, but then there seems to be a return to a more hardline idea of "the truth" or "universal truth", and many posters are just frustrated with how can you have different universal truths or different versions of "the truth".

My own perspective is that the missing piece has been any explanation of what "the truth" is supposed to mean. It's obviously important to some to cling onto it but they seem unable to explain why it is important to them to posit it, still less an idea of what it is.

The closest was perhaps BH's Zen comment about making music in the moment. But that seems more like "a truth" rather than "the truth". If one performance achieves this Zen state, and then another quite different performance also achieves the Zen state, then I think it is much more reasonable to talk about each performance relating to "a truth", in the form I defined above. If one argues that each of them relates to the same Zen state, so they are the same truth, then even if you are able to make sense of that I think that would be shifting the thing the truth refers to away from the music and over to an experience one has of being at one with something. That's all very well, but it just seems to me that you are then saying that you have a preference for particular performances because they make you feel at one with something. I don't really see where "the truth" comes into play here; we just seem to be back to personal preferences. The fact that lots of people might have the same preference also does not raise any idea of truth - it just suggests that people have a fair degree of similarity between them, which is no surprise.

Sorry to waffle on, but I suppose the reason I persist with this is because of a fascination that some people seem to want to bring such complexity into just enjoying music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Interesting, because I seem to get routinely blamed for using the word, yet if you look at my post above for example, I said "a universal truth." I very rarely if ever have been calling it "the truth."

The two biggest problems in this thread have been:

A) People reacting without actually reading and/or understanding posts

B) Trolls merely trying to sabotage the discussion


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Interesting, because I seem to get routinely blamed for using the word, yet if you look at my post above for example, I said "a universal truth." I very rarely if ever have been calling it "the truth."
> 
> The two biggest problems in this thread have been:
> 
> A) People reacting without actually reading and/or understanding posts
> 
> B) Trolls merely trying to sabotage the discussion


OK, can you clarify what you mean by "a universal truth" then? (That is, beyond the banal observation that there could be different truths about different things, and each might be universal in its own narrow context, which I don't think is what you are seeking to get across.)

In my post I came as far as I could in interpreting "truth" as meaning some sort of correspondence between (1) my idea of a piece of music and (2) a performance of it. That could be referred to as "a truth". I can't see how one can support a claim that it is universal except as some sort of leap of faith, as I have no reason to expect others to feel just the same, and I have no way of knowing the details of their experiences.

On the other hand, when it came to the Zen thing, I could see that one might try and apply universality to some sort of feeling of loss of self in the moment, if all people might on occasion have that sort of feeling (although for many it might not be connected with music). However, I couldn't see why that had anything to do with "truth". (And I would even doubt that we could know much about it being universal, but I gave you a pass on that one.)

Hence, I don't see how "a universal truth" helps. It just seems like a way of trying to sneak "the truth" under the radar, because universal tends to preclude alternatives.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Enthusiast said:


> No work, artist or performer can have exclusive access to _*the*_ truth but the word truth still have a vital role to play in describing art. I haven't read the thread closely enough but can anyone disagree with that


No one disagrees with that.

But we have one troll who insists the discussion is about exclusive access to truth even though he has been proved wrong over and over to the point of resurrecting posts from two months ago to prove what a consistently incessant liar he is.


----------



## Heck148

No, we have one poster who put forth indefensible premises, tried to establish an imaginary concept as indisputable fact, tried to assert his favorite conductor was superior due to his pursuit of this dubious, extra- music construct, and that those conductors not preoccupied with this pursuit were necessarily inferior, and nothing more than "trained monkeys".
Having been torn apart on that position, said poster has altered, twisted his offerings beyond recognition...other posters have very justly and legitimately called him out on these inconsistencies.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Ah. You two need to go outside and sort it out with a bout of fisticuffs.


----------



## JAS

Don't forget your COVID masks, and remain at least 6 feet apart.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> No, we have one poster who put forth indefensible premises, tried to establish an imaginary concept as indisputable fact, tried to assert his favorite conductor was superior due to his pursuit of this dubious, extra- music construct, and that those conductors not preoccupied with this pursuit were necessarily inferior, and nothing more than "trained monkeys".
> Having been torn apart on that position, said poster has altered, twisted his offerings beyond recognition...other posters have very justly and legitimately called him out on these inconsistencies.


This was two months ago, May 18 to be exact:



Heck148 said:


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





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Heck, this is absolutely disgusting. How do you type such crap with a straight face. I have NEVER said any of this. All I have said is that I prefer WF's recordings to other conductors in German Romantic repertoire. I don't have that right???
> 
> I have made it CLEAR OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that this is my subjective opinion. And you keep coming on here and LYING by putting words in my mouth that my opinion is universal dogma. I NEVER EVER SAID THAT.
> 
> WHY DO YOU KEEP LYING ABOUT MY WORDS, HECK???????


And this was just yesterday:



Heck148 said:


> That sounds good...I just want him to cease with this premise that there is an absolute, objective "truth" in all music, along with it the claim that Furtwangler is the only mortal to be divinely blessed to apprehend such truth, and the ridiculous claim that any conductor who doesn't follow the WF path to supposed truth must be a "trained monkey", or metronomic time-beater. I don't see it happening....





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Would you stop lying??? MODS!!!!!!!





Heck148 said:


> your position has been - All music has an overlay of non-musical abstract truth. WF is superior to other conductors who do not seek such supposed "truth"....since they do not seek your "truth", other conductors must be wrong...
> not only are they wrong, they are no better than "trained monkeys".
> now you are whistling a different tune?? your supposed "truth" is now just your opinion?? WF's opinion?? what happened to the ultimate "truth"??





Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have a right to my damned opinion, but my opinion is not equal to objective truth! It is only my perception of truth, no more valid than anyone else's perception of truth. This is what I have always said!!!!!!
> 
> Why don't you grow a pair of balls and quote me instead of making crap up, Mr. Fake Literalist!


You have been repeating the same lies about my posts for two months now. When is it going to stop?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You have been repeating the same lies about my posts for two months now. When is it going to stop?


Leading question, based on faulty assumption not in evidence. I haven't lied at all. Neither have the others....your postings, and changing positions have all been documented....you offered up flawed premises and have been called on them.


----------



## Malx

This may be the only solution guys  :


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Leading question, based on faulty assumption not in evidence. I haven't lied at all. Neither have the others....your postings, and changing positions have all been documented....you offered up flawed premises and have been called on them.


It is clearly in evidence above. I am saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming. I am saying that my opinion does not equal objective truth. I said it two months ago. I said it yesterday.

Why don't you be a man and quote an entire post - not a few words out of context - where I claimed that my opinion equals objective truth above the opinions of everyone else?

You can't, because it never happened.

Everyone knows what is going on here. You are butthurt because I expressed opinions on your precious Toscanini and Reiner that you don't like. I think they give elementary, simplistic interpretations, and that conductors like Furtwangler delve deeper into the meaning of the music.

That is my opinion, that has always been my OPINION, and I am not going to be intimidated into changing it by your harrassing and trolling me.

You are clearly a very pathetic, sad, insecure individual who cannot handle opinions differing from his own.

I present facts. I quote directly. I do not make things up.

You live in a bubble where you can make any claim that you want. You can claim I said things I never said. You can claim Toscanini and Reiner go just as deep - no DEEPER in fact - than anyone else. That's your way of being. And no wonder that when confronted with the truth of other opinions you get butthurt. Have fun with that.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread is temporarily closed.


----------

