Bruno Walter (1876-1962)

[regriba]

I certainly agree that opinions, positive or negative, should be expressed in decent terms. That is, I think, one of the great things about this forum.

But relentless positivity a sign of our times? Is that really always the case? It seems to me that, at least here in Denmark, most people expressing opinions about classical music are generally wary of being too enthusiastic, for fear of not being taken seriously. At least that was my experience when, some years ago, I was asked by a local journalist to cover a couple of symphonic concerts for him. I did so, but when my reviews appeared in the paper, some of the most positively worded parts had been cut. When I asked the journalist why, he told me that nobody took  too positive reviews seriously. And that was the end of my brief career as a music critic  .

[Dundonnell]

Just as an aside, since we seem to be on the topic of 'positivity' and the 'courteous approach' so properly adhered to on this forum, I was recently accused-in somewhat vitriolic terms-on another forum (which shall remain nameless ) of using my 'positivity' towards a number of 'unsung' composers of tonal and 'accessible' composers as a deliberate campaign to "denigrate, marginalise and demonize" atonal and avant-garde music

[Mark Thomas]

Surely your help isn't needed to achieve that?

[jerfilm]

Quite right, Colin.  To put it another way, sometimes it's most prudent just to keep one's mouth shut......
Some of us have spent a lifetime trying to learn how to do that 

Jerry

And not always successfully.....

[Dundonnell]

Surely your help isn't needed to achieve that?

It is, I think, a sign of the times that amongst the community of music-lovers-as opposed to the professional, critical fraternity-those who adhere to traditional musical form, tonality, melody etc etc should now be "fighting back", at least in the sense of making the case for composers who were ignored or ostracised in the 1960s onwards. If people like atonal music-and I like a little of such music- or avant-garde music-which leaves me cold-then so be it. Good luck to them
But I am certainly not going to stop proclaiming the merits of the composers I love or be deterred from doing so by the paranoia of others

[JimL]

Just as an aside, since we seem to be on the topic of 'positivity' and the 'courteous approach' so properly adhered to on this forum, I was recently accused-in somewhat vitriolic terms-on another forum (which shall remain nameless ) of using my 'positivity' towards a number of 'unsung' composers of tonal and 'accessible' composers as a deliberate campaign to "denigrate, marginalise and demonize" atonal and avant-garde music

I would have responded that atonal and avant-garde music certainly didn't need any help from me to do that!

[Alan Howe]

Re-listening to the Walter Symphony simply reinforces my overall opinion, I'm afraid - an awfully long and not very memorable piece. However....
...I enjoyed a lot of the orchestral scenery, even though I couldn't really discern where the piece was going most of the time. Of course, the mistake I might be making is to expect it to sound and go like Mahler when it is altogether more expressionistic in an early Krenek-like way. And there is a glorious climax from around 9 minutes into the slow movement which I certainly enjoyed. As I said, I'm glad I've got the symphony and it's interesting listening. Don't think it's a particularly high quality piece, though...

[izdawiz]

Have not heard the Symphony,  But I would like to say that the Violin Sonata is actually a Good Piece, it's been a while since I heard it but I do remember that I liked it.  it was on a CD that included Walter/Pfitzner: Violin Sonatas....

[eschiss1]

And since we're already off-topic, my reactions to certain comments that are explicitly negatively, generally and uninformatively about nontonal music or serial music are colored perhaps by the fact that in the US there hasn't exactly been an equivalent of a "Glock period" to react against, so it's rather like kicking something when it's down. (Not that I defend the music in that category that I like for that reason- I defend it because I like it.)

As I have not heard Walter's symphony or music yet (I have skimmed his violin sonata, @IMSLP) I hush now.

[semloh]

There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer. Perhaps, however, their familiarity with the repertoire (and their personal preferences for certain composers) actually makes it difficult for them to find a distinctive voice, and to tend instead toward a characterless mélange (or - perhaps more accurately blancmange  ). Whilst quite enjoyable, I think even Furtwangler's efforts border on pastiche, drawing on Bruckner/Strauss/Mahler/Wagner ...... and although I haven't heard the Bruno Walter (I'm still waiting for the CD, Peter ), I suspect that it falls into that category. Maybe? 

[mbhaub]

There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer.

And yet, there are so few who did both successfully. Bernstein certainly. But really, who else? I've heard music by Salonen, Segerstam, Maazel, Serebrier and Lindberg, just to name 5 living composers. Nothing they have written is going to make anyone's top-100 list. Ever. For dead conductors: Szell, Walter, Furtwangler, Dorati, Kletzki, and many others have written serious music for orchestra, but not one of them has written a gem. Klemperer - egads! So while there is no obvious reason, there is some reason why it isn't done. Somewhere on this board was a long discussion of works my conductor/composers that might be worth looking at. Personally, I didn't find the Walter as bad as others, but it is no masterwork. Enjoyable (if that's the word) at least as much as I find the Wetz symphonies.

[Dundonnell]

And since we're already off-topic, my reactions to certain comments that are explicitly negatively, generally and uninformatively about nontonal music or serial music are colored perhaps by the fact that in the US there hasn't exactly been an equivalent of a "Glock period" to react against, so it's rather like kicking something when it's down. (Not that I defend the music in that category that I like for that reason- I defend it because I like it.)

As I have not heard Walter's symphony or music yet (I have skimmed his violin sonata, @IMSLP) I hush now.

Interesting that you should use the word "defend", Eric

There really should be no cause to "defend" the music one likes. I am happy to promote the merits of the music I like, to express my enthusiasm for it and to encourage others-people who have given me reason to believe share, to a greater or lesser extent, my particular tastes-to listen to it. I don't really feel terribly inclined to, frankly, waste my time "defending" it against the attacks of those who don't like it.

[Dundonnell]

There seems to be no obvious reason why a successful conductor can't also be a successful composer.

And yet, there are so few who did both successfully. Bernstein certainly. But really, who else? I've heard music by Salonen, Segerstam, Maazel, Serebrier and Lindberg, just to name 5 living composers. Nothing they have written is going to make anyone's top-100 list. Ever. For dead conductors: Szell, Walter, Furtwangler, Dorati, Kletzki, and many others have written serious music for orchestra, but not one of them has written a gem. Klemperer - egads! So while there is no obvious reason, there is some reason why it isn't done. Somewhere on this board was a long discussion of works my conductor/composers that might be worth looking at. Personally, I didn't find the Walter as bad as others, but it is no masterwork. Enjoyable (if that's the word) at least as much as I find the Wetz symphonies.

I remember when I tried to construct a list of conductor/composers a few years ago I got a bit stuck with people like Mahler, Strauss, Weingartner and Howard Hanson and the issue of are these composer/conductors or conductors/composers

We can base our answer to that question from an historical perspective but during the lifetimes of the individuals themselves the answer is not always quite so clear-cut.

Furtwangler certainly seems to have believed that his compositions were every bit as significant to his role as an artist as his conducting. History disagrees

[mbhaub]

Funny you should mention Howard Hanson. At least among the others named, I think he's decidedly 2nd rate, and it's safe to say that that's the verdict of history. When was the last time any major orchestra played anything of his other than for recording purposes? The 2nd Symphony is the only one anyone plays nowadays, and then it's always amateur and semi-pro orchestras. Maybe high school bands play some his music, I don't know. By coincidence, I'm in rehearsals now for the 2nd and every time I play I remember what a truly stirring and beautiful work it is. Maybe it is the long sought after "Great American Symphony".

But what about his conducting? Collectors of American music will forever be grateful to him for his pioneering work, no doubt. But his small string section (4 basses is all they could muster in Eastman?) and the deadly accurate Mercury recordings make those recordings distinctly inferior to the superb work from Jarvi in Detroit, Schwartz in Seattle, and then the Naxos series. I've talked to a lot of people who knew and played under Hanson and every one of them said he had a weird conducting technique, but somehow he got you to play better than you ever thought you could. Sadly, there aren't recordings of him doing standard repertoire to judge him by.

But back to Walter. I've been on a Beethoven kick lately. Listening to a lot of new recordings -- historically correct and all that. Very good. Then this week, just for old times sake I listened to an old set: Walter, the stereo remakes. When I was younger  I found them dull and not so interesting. But now, older, I found them really moving, beautifully paced and not nearly as bad as I remembered. They may not have the granite like quality of Klemperer, but Walter's Beethoven isn't bad at all. His Dvorak is superb, too. Just to bad he didn't pick up composing tips fromt them.

[Peter1953]

Dear friends, thank you all for your interesting posts. Not only Walter's symphony has been discussed, but also how to express negative and positive opinions.

I know how it feels if a member is (very) critical about a piece of music, or composer, you like very much. You ask yourself, how is it possible that he doesn't recognize the quality, the genius, or whatever, like I do? Even if the music doesn't appeal to someone else's personal taste, as a music lover, a critical listener, he can hear that the piece certainly has some quality? Well, it's all about personal taste, I suppose.

My reaction on Walter's symphony was a very simple "so boring". In fact, before I ordered this disc I've listened to all audio samples and thought that Walter's symphony was comparable with those of Weingartner. And I like Weingartner quite a lot, although he demonstrated that he could also write boring passages for his symphonies (BTW, I really love his VC). After a first and concentrated listen of the Walter I was really disappointed. I felt the music doesn't go anywhere, no rich and memorable themes, nothing interesting at all. Hence my opinion which is nothing more than a first impression. But indeed, Peter senior, I will give the symphony another listen in due course (sorry semloh, first that second listen...).
I don't have any negative comments on Botstein, the orchestra or the quality of the recording. On the contrary. That is fully up to cpo's standard which I think is excellent.

Talking about great and famous conductors who are also composers, I read in Röntgen's biography  that Willem Mengelberg (a German, born in the Netherlands), brilliant pianist and perhaps the most famous and controversial conductor (a quirky pioneer, self-glorification, his attitude during the Second World War) the Dutch Concertgebouw Orchestra ever had, also composed music. Has anyone ever heard something of Mengelberg?