From Regietheater to Mahler 7/K.Petrenko - I think this is worth hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQFd7gJRdD8
Very much so, Alan. Thank you for alerting me to it. I have always said - and will continue to say - that in theatre, opera, the concert hall... etc. in order to have any chance of achieving artistic merit, one must PERFORM THE TEXT: one's interpretation must be based on, informed by, inspired by, THE TEXT. One might be forgiven for thinking that this was obvious to someone of the meanest intelligence - but, alas, No!
Thing is, Petrenko will argue that he always stayed close to the text, but perhaps too much so.
I am prepared to give performers a huge latitude when it comes to their art. Because if we limit ourselves purely to reproducing as exactly as possible what the composer wrote, it isn't art anymore - it has become craft. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but to bring life into music you need to transform the 'text' (sensu Derrida) in some way.
That is particularly urgent with something that's been performed and recorded as often as a Mahler symphony (let alone one by Beethoven or Brahms, for instance). If you're not prepared to impose something innovative on the 'text', what's the point of recording it at all? Just put on <Mahler conductor of preference> and be done with it.
The issue is, and has been for ages, that the music industry *needs* production: if only for reasons of marketing, they need new recordings even if these produce nothing new at all. Here we come to the circular reasoning of panic, which was introduced to me by the TV series Yes, Minister:
1. We need to do something
2. This is something
3. We need to do this
... which is the basis on which a large part the music industry (not only the classical music industry, and arguably other creative industries as well) has now operated for at least twenty years, as far as the iron repertory is concerned. So we're getting uninspired repeats of stuff previous people have done by new people, or 'novel' stuff that lacks any coherent artistic vision. Cut, add, repeat, transform, transpose, do anything you like - but please, let it have some artistic merit, rather than go through the motions because some A&R manager decided it was time for another Mahler 7th, any Mahler 7th.
Or even better, pass on the umpteenth Mahler 7 and record something that hasn't been done to death. Just a suggestion.
QuoteIf you're not prepared to impose something innovative on the 'text', what's the point of recording it at all?
There shouldn't be any imposition; the starting-point's the score, not the ego of the conductor/performer/director.
But the final product should never just be the score. The "ego" of the performer is a crucial part of any performance.
Side note: It seems to me, that "ego" is reserved for opinions one doesn't like, whereas "personality" is applied to those one does like.
That's the art of criticism, John.
Quote from: John Boyer on Monday 09 August 2021, 19:16
So, who are we to believe?
In the end we have to make our own minds up. Sometimes I find that DH is right, sometimes not. In the case of Mahler 7 I wouldn't be buying it anyway as I already have enough versions to be going on with, so his view is irrelevant to me.
However, what interests me is not so much Petrenko's M7, but DH's general point which concerns the trend - in his view - to alien 'concepts' being applied from without to whatever music is being performed. I concede that personality is important in interpretation, but it must be appropriate. So, for example if a director so imposes his 'personality' on an operatic production that the original conception is effectively buried or fatally twisted, then I'm just not interested. Similarly, if opera singers with magnificent voices impose an alien style on a particular work (think Franco Corelli in Gounod's Roméo et Juliette) or if conductors simply don't 'get' the essence of the piece they're conducting (think Nelsons in a sludge-like performance of Bruckner 7), then we're into the ego game, not the serious matter of faithful interpretation.
Of course, there must be latitude here. But there's latitude and there's licence...
Fortunately, we rarely encounter egomaniac conductors in unsung repertoire; they're too focused on the music.
I did not say one should merely reproduce the text. I said the performance should be INFORMED by the text, rather than having some notion outside the text imposed on it. Within that aesthetic there is vast scope for artistic interpretation. The starting point of any artistic performance has to be the text. I do wish people would read what I write.
You're quite right, Gareth.
Ilja's Yes, Minister quote was introduced to me by a quote of -it- in a novel by Charles Stross, but I gather that that fine author is, in turn, a Yes, Minister fan...
Interesting that this thread showed up now. I watched Hurwitz's negative review and read his website: gave this new recording a lowly 3 out of 10. Then came Musicweb International which really liked it. I emailed Hurwitz that he should do a followi up and try to explain how two supposedly intelligent critics could be so opposed. His suggestion: Trust me, I'm right.
So I ordered the disk and listened for myself. I think it's a superb CD in every way. The playing is top-notch, the recorded sound very natural and beautiful. The conducting: first rate. The amount of attention paid to the numerous details in the score is amazing. In fact, if you follow the score with Hurwitz's favorite version, Bernstein, it's clear who pays closer attention to the written score, and it's not Lenny. This new 7th is one of the best I've ever heard. Hurwitz seems to have a problem with Petrenko. I don't. His willingness to do lesser-known repertoire is commendable. I just know he'll have Berlin playing a Raff symphony one of these days!
Quote from: MartinH on Thursday 12 August 2021, 05:01
The amount of attention paid to the numerous details in the score is amazing. In fact, if you follow the score with Hurwitz's favorite version, Bernstein, it's clear who pays closer attention to the written score, and it's not Lenny.
The funny thing is: This is exactly Hurwitz's problem: He does not like this attention-to-detail conducting. He wants attention to be paid to the grand sweep of the music, especially I suppose in a monster symphony like this one.
When Gerd Albrecht was in Zurich I once heard him conduct a Tchaikovsky symphony (I forget which). It sounded like an audible analysis of the piece. You could hear every detail; it was an amazing feat of conducting ad I was fascinated. But this sort of interpretation comes at a cost: Loss of emotional impact (and loss of physical impact as well in a live performance when the sound makes the ribs vibrate in your chest).
There is perfect agreement on the diagnose; the disagreement is about preferences.
QuoteHurwitz seems to have a problem with Petrenko.
I think his problem is with certain present-day conductors who (a) don't do what the great conductors with decades of experience behind them did, or (b) are intent upon imposing their own concept on the music (as opposed to starting with the score). In this he's half-right - so, for example he sees (correctly) that Nelsons in Bruckner is all wrong (his 7th is very stodgy and immobile), but evidently Petrenko in M7 is far too forensic for him. Of course, it's true that a conductor can suck all the life out of a score while trying simply to recreate what's there (Boulez could be guilty of this), but there may be another factor at play here - and that is, his disagreements with other critics and the music press in general. Again here, he's half-right. When writers simply laud celebrity performers and fail to apply their critical faculties, he has a right to be annoyed. However (to quote DH himself!), he clearly harbours an animus towards particular sections of the press, namely us Brits, who may not favour the sort of whizz-bang approach to the repertoire he prefers. Bernstein is a case in point. Lennie has always been highly regarded over here, of course, but not uncritically so; and others have always more highly regarded, e.g. Solti (probably because of his association with Covent Garden) and especially Brits such as Boult, Barbirolli, Beecham, etc.
Personally, I find his views of real interest (and often more than that), but his is not the only opinion out there. When it comes to choosing recordings it's best to read a variety of reviews and, if possible, listen for oneself before purchasing. And - thankfully - when it comes to the unsung repertoire we (a) rarely have the luxury of choice and (b) are fortunate that performers are forced to start from the score because there's usually no performing tradition to go on.
I have been following this very well informed discussion closely, and Alan´s last post is very wise. Hurwitz is an entertaining enfant terrible who sets out to provoke debate. He may be the first, but never the last, word on any subject. The whole course of this thread drew me back to the later symphonies of Mahler (I have possessed 1 to 5 since a teenager). Sadly, to me they are music that puts me in mind of the infamous critique delivered on Tchaikovsky´s Violin Concerto...........The thread also brought back memories of an old British film starring Rex Harrison as an egomaniac conductor and there can be no doubt that when the conductor comes to believe that he is greater than the text, things will not end well.
That so eloquently characterizes my own view of Hurwitz, Alan, and of the personal preferences that prejudice his assessments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though, and I think it's only a problem if people regard him as the supreme authority and uncritically adopt those preferences.
I think two characteristics of Hurwitz that make him attractive are his joyous approach and his genuine enthusiasm. A good example of both of those is his video on Röntgen that was praised on this forum not long ago.
It would be good if, say, a prominent British critic were to do video reviews along the same lines. We need more voices 'out there'.
You just volunteered, Alan!! ;D
Unfortunately I don't have the academic 'chops' for the task. Someone like Martin Anderson would do a good job - or David Owen Norris.
Yes, indeed. Either would be magnificent.
Depends on the size of their house/apartment and overflow room!
As much of a troll that he is, he often makes a lot of sense. Did anyone watch the latest? Beethoven in Cristofori's Bathroom. Hilarious and relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiTmAM_81Nw
Yes - agreed. A muzzled Eroica. A mighty symphony with its teeth removed.
I listened to some of the soundbites on Presto Classical. They were unbelievably horrible - the funeral march of the Eroica, in particular, was a risible travesty. I am 100% behind Hurwitz.
So am I. As regards the extreme idiocies of HIP there aren't many prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes.
But it's OK to orchestrate chamber music? When you think about it, piano reductions of symphonies are even sillier.
I can see the point of piano reductions of symphonies done in the past when, maybe, it was the only way to hear the music; and, of course, some reductions are tours de force pianistically. However, they're not for me either.
As for orchestrations of chamber music, it all depends. I love what Szell did in orchestrating Smetana's 1st String Quartet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vatv_Fuo6Ks
The Smetana orchestration is new on me and most enjoyable - thanks for that! But Hurwitz's lengthy diatribes bore me. I could go on at considerable length about why I don't like such-and-such but in a way it's disrespectful to those who think differently. Unlikely I know, but it risks persuading them they're "wrong" and spoiling their enjoyment.
Yes, more humility is needed. As I said, he prefers 'whizz-bang' over considered performances (largely). I like both. I often buy both to get the 'bigger picture'. And I will go on playing both...
as to symphonic orchestrations of chamber music, I wouldn't tell Cherubini or Pfitzner -not- to.
I'm with you on this one, John. For me, transcriptions and arrangements up or down in scale often serve to highlight aspects of the music that I had previous overlooked. Of course, many have a significant pedigree (Beethoven by Mahler, Hummel, Reinecke, etc.), and many were done to facilitate playing by domestic chamber groups or instrumentalists in 19thC drawings rooms. My personal bugbear is not so much 'reductions' or orchestrations, ancient or modern, but classical repertoire 're-imagined' by composers who think they can improve on what went before. To me, it's akin to painting extras on the Mona Lisa.
Getting back to modern-day performance idiosyncracies, it's perfectly understandable that each generation of musicians wishes to make its mark, and that means performing in a new way that stands out from the rest - alterations in balance, changes in tempo, preferences for certain types of instrument, and so on. The repository of great performances is brimming over, so the need to be different constantly grows. So much so that a 'straight' performance of Vivaldi's The Four Seasons, for example, is no longer enough - it has to be puffed up, reimagined, etc., and we're back to the Mona Lisa!
Grumpy old man retires to his collection of dead conductors...