One of your best, Dave. I find it very reassuring, as I've been prone to this myself, probably exacerbated by OCD. I'll be conscious now to relax more and enjoy the differences in recordings. Bless you!
Here’s an example of your impact on me as a concertgoer that applies to this talk: I went to hear Mahler 9 the other week at Philadelphia. Absolutely gorgeous performance, a lot like the first Solti recording where you described it as being a Straussian interpretation. My one complaint? Cymbal crashes in the first movement weren’t loud enough. And when I said this to my friend who was with me, a woman passing us said “you’re right! They were too quiet.” Details are to be noticed, they’re not dealbreakers.
People tend to forget composers often write ideas that look good on paper, but may not be practical when actually played. Case in point: Bruckner's double note values in the brass during the second movement of his 7th Symphony. So an occasional, minor mishap shouldn't be surprising.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a big world out there & we're blessed with so many choices in most repertoire. I quite enjoy quirks & foibles. Inadequate preparation is another matter; intolerable in recordings, especially tell tale poor ensemble & intonation.
Dynamic art forms (plays, music, etc.) are meant to allow for (re)interpretation from one performance to another. If Beethoven had wanted his creations to exist in singular forms he would have been a painter. Do we really want every performance to sound exactly the same? ...BORING!!! I love the variety--even (some of) the perversity--brought to these compositions. Thanks Dave for another perfectly crystalized rant.
In my youth, a century or so ago, I could never understand why Sibelius’ first and second symphonies were constantly performed but the fifth wasn’t, at least, not nearly as often. So, I started asking every music lover I knew, and almost always it was because they hated the finale’s last five notes. Well, that the phenomenon you describe could be applied to an entire composition, especially one as glorious as the Sibelius fifth, has to be the worst example of snobbery in the music world. How easily listeners can lose the joy in great music! Thanks Dave
Dave, you hit the nail on the head, a lot of this is self appointed experts who are just soo knowlegeable that they can detect things that vary from either the score, or more commonly, what they think it should be. If playing it exactly as written is the goal, digitize the score and play it through a computer, one recording is all you need. Classical music thrives on variation, it is on the nature of the performance. It is human factors, even the mistakes, it is in a concertmaster or section principal and how they lead. It reminds me of violin teachers that obsess on perfect intonation and perfect bowings and vibrato, and the kids they teach play perfectly, they can rip through a paganini caprice perfectly...and they are boring as hell, bc there is no infividuality, it literally is robotic. Obsessing about 'mistakes', about not playing it the way it is written, destroys the piece. Obviously a bad performance is a bad performsnce , poor tone quality, crazy dynamics, can ruin a performance, or lackluster playing with no energy. I am blessed i guess that i dont read scores or am not a scholar of the composer, and enjoy the performance based on how it makes me feel.
Reminds me of a great line from Frasier: ""What is the one thing better than an exquisite meal? An exquisite meal with one tiny flaw we can pick at all night!"
My main goal in listening to music is to enjoy the listening moment, let the emotion flow. I have no time to spend on too much pin pointing details. But, I also have fun to comparing different versions of a musical composition. It is part of my musical journey! Many thanks to you Dave to help me with that!
Your example of Bernstein's treatment of the final note of Mahler's 7th reminded me of his treatment of the final note(s) of Nielsen's 5th. There he omitted the grace note that some performers play. When I first heard a performance that included it (after I was thoroughly familiar with Bernstein's recording), I was amazed that the impression made by a 30+ minute symphony could be so improved (IMHO) by including such a minor detail. With few exceptions, however, I agree with your general point. One should expect minor deviations from the score in almost every performance. That's part of what makes one interpretation different from another -- minor changes in tempo, volume, balance, etc. happen frequently, and many of them are not indicated in the score. If every interpretation were a mechanically faithful literal execution of the score, we'd only need one recording of each work -- hmm, that would save a lot of money and collecting effort.
Does “don’t sweat the small stuff” extend to instrumental flubs or obtrusive coughs from the audience in live recordings? One of my favorite (pause to don necktie) Beethoven Ninths is Klaus Tennstedt’s with the London Phil at a 1989 Proms concert (the BBC disc, not the later one on the LPO label). The horns are occasionally wayward, the soloists are less than stellar, the Royal Albert Hall acoustic is cavernous; and flaws be damned, it’s an urgent, untamed, compelling performance. The Ferenc Fricsay Berlin Phil Ninth is flub-free, has the best solo quartet of all time, and deserves its status as a (the?) reference recording. Still, when I want to be absorbed and swept along in the Ninth, I reach for Tennstedt. Over time, I’ve come to tolerate - even anticipate - its flaws. A perfect Ninth is as unobtainable as universal brotherhood on this earthly plane. Feel free to borrow that rationale for your defective or quirky favorites.
The brass in Jochum’s Dresden Bruckner cycle may exhibit a certain “edginess” (compared to the Bavarian Radio & Berlin Phil brass in his DG cycle), but they DO add a certain quelque-chose to the MUSIC…especially in the 5th and the 9th.
For a very long time I only knew Karajan's recording of Prokoviev's first "classical" symphony. When I heard other recordings I was flabbergasted, because these sounded completely different.
Dave, you just gave me a wonderful bit of advice. Whenever I listen to Bruckner's 8th, I focus too much on how the last three chords of the whole symphony are played to the detriment of my appreciation of the whole performance. I will make an effort (not an obsession) to adjust this. Regarding Mahler 7, I grew up with the Abravanel recording. When i heard Lenny's Sony recording. I was thrilled with the whole thing and loved his take on the ending! Thanks for the music lesson!
You are absolutely right, Dave. We all have our own perspectives and idiosyncrasies. I heard the Cleveland Orchestra play Bruckner 4 in Vienna this September. The tympani are still too soft!😂
Great video with a great approach, in fact the only one. I had trouble with Klemperer as too slow, until I really listened to all his works. I completely reversed course on his Bruckner 6th, a real favorite of mine, after I just listened. Same with the Mackerras Brahms' first which was also an ear opener for me. Yes, the variety of interpretations by serious artists like Klemperer and Mackerras is a real blessing. And by the way, just because I am way down here in New Zealand, and comment infrequently, does NOT mean I am not watching. Cheers, Chuck
Funny thing-I think LB draws out the raspberry cheer for too long in his remake of Ives’s Second Symphony, more so than his first recording. But his interpretations demonstrate his love for the work.
Those people that complain about the ending of Bernstein's Mahler 7 make me curious about how much "more important " issues slipped by they didn't/don't notice. I would understand if Bernstein had the trumpet break into a 12 bar bebop solo in the middle, but come on 😅
Good points, Dave. I am of the opinion that Bernstein actually improved the ending of the Mahler 7th with that little change, but understand the purists on this. Which brings up my only real obsession about interpretation. If you mess up the finale, you leave a bad taste in the ear. I can listen to an hour long symphony with any number of odities of tempo, etc. but if you screw with the finale, you have lost me. Just my take.
What a great video on the perspective on listening! Dave, I have a video content suggestion: I am very curious into knowing what are some crucial element of a symphony (such as how hard to nail Brahms’s 3rd). That would be fascinating to hear your views on what are the most important aspect of some major pieces ❤ great admiration for your perspective
Dare I mention, once again, the final note of Schubert's Great C Major? To your point, it is a single note at the end of a moderately lengthy symphony that always seems to ignite adamantly disproportionate reactions.
Yes, that's one of those potential exceptions, except that the vast majority of the performance that take the (obviously wrong) diminuendo at the end aren't great performances to begin with.
@DavesClassicalGuide Amen! When I took a creative writing class in college, the professor (who was also a music lover and taught an interdisciplinary course on opera and drama) devised a test quoting various poetry passages but with one word left out which the student had to fill in from a multiple choice list. One word and one word only was the mot juste. Conductors who choose a dim. at the end of the Schubert despite the obvious implied contextual ending would flunk. Just as would any conductor who ended the New World symphony ff instead of Dvorak's expressively moving, sensitive (and genius) fade out. The Norringtons will end Schubert's 9th softly, the Szells will not.
Toscanini, not at all the literalist of the caricatures, ends the Berlioz Fete at the Capulets with an emphatic, forceful near staccato stop and not the held chords in the winds after it. You may not like it, but it doesn't affect the terrifc elan and vivacity of the overall conception. I suppose there must be people out there with a stopwatch in their hands who reject a Bartok performance if it doesn't adhere to the composer's stated section and movement timings?
Interesting! makes me wonder: are composers themselves partly to blame? That is, just as there are chord and line guys, I wonder if there are some (I think immediately of Wagner and perhaps romantics generally) who make listeners tolerate many minutes of music before getting their socks knocked off by an explosively transcendent moment, as distinct from, say, Bach and Haydn whose music is a continuous flow of delightful if less make or break moments.
Bernstein also holds the last note of Ives's 2nd symphony a bit longer than written. So what? It enhances the effect of the dissonance. Sometimes the last minutes of the Dvorak #7 last movement are re-orchestrated with the horns to reinforce the violins as in the earlier passage in the exposition in the dominant key. It sounds wonderful with the added horns. What composers would turn their noses to a performance that enhances that performance.
Reminds me of Paul Robinson's complaint in his book about Stokowski. He went nuts over Stokowski adding a slur at the end of his many recordings of Tchaikovsky's fifth symphony. He feels it completely ruins the performance.
But for me Stokie scores points by ignoring Tchaikovsky's full stop just before the coda of the 5th but rather continuing right on with it. OTH, I hate his omission of the last bars of Romeo and Juliet. It's mawkish 1930s Hollywood dreck.
For the record, Bernstein does decrescendo/crescendo at the end Mahler 7 in his later DG recording as well. I know this because I have the recording and I was there at Avery Fisher Hall when he did it. It’s fine as far as I’m concerned. I generally agree with you on this issue. But I do hear things that maybe others don’t and I look at its influence with regard to the pacing of the work as a whole. It usually doesn’t bother me much if I don’t like that spot or this spot. It’s more of a head scratcher.
Hi. I will not always agree with you but that’s sorta natural. So, for example, I do think those two Nachtmusik movement should be a bit quicker than Bernstein, but that’s just my feeling. The second Nacht music seems to me (at least) to be something to do with don giovanni. So, the symphony does not have a slow movement, which is why apparently (not me) people don’t like it. You have made a bit of a thing about the very end of Blomstedt’s Nielsen 4, so although I don’t have an issue with the end of the Sony Mahler 7, well, you know
I wonder if the close monitoring of an interpretation takes away from a full enjoyment. Can you "lose yourself" in the music if you're constantly monitoring a performance's faith to your idea of what the work is? If you're someone who does judge every moment of a performance, try to drop that and see if you can have a different and actually a more immersive experience! That's my experience.
One of your best, Dave. I find it very reassuring, as I've been prone to this myself, probably exacerbated by OCD. I'll be conscious now to relax more and enjoy the differences in recordings. Bless you!
Here’s an example of your impact on me as a concertgoer that applies to this talk:
I went to hear Mahler 9 the other week at Philadelphia. Absolutely gorgeous performance, a lot like the first Solti recording where you described it as being a Straussian interpretation.
My one complaint? Cymbal crashes in the first movement weren’t loud enough.
And when I said this to my friend who was with me, a woman passing us said “you’re right! They were too quiet.”
Details are to be noticed, they’re not dealbreakers.
Thank you for sharing that great story!
People tend to forget composers often write ideas that look good on paper, but may not be practical when actually played. Case in point: Bruckner's double note values in the brass during the second movement of his 7th Symphony. So an occasional, minor mishap shouldn't be surprising.
If a crescendo in the last chord is the worst thing about a performance, then it's a damn good performance.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's a big world out there & we're blessed with so many choices in most repertoire. I quite enjoy quirks & foibles. Inadequate preparation is another matter; intolerable in recordings, especially tell tale poor ensemble & intonation.
Luckily, my musical memory isn't good enough to obsess over details.
Love it 😆
Thank you, Mr Hurwitz. You make many valid points (not only in this video).
Dynamic art forms (plays, music, etc.) are meant to allow for (re)interpretation from one performance to another. If Beethoven had wanted his creations to exist in singular forms he would have been a painter. Do we really want every performance to sound exactly the same? ...BORING!!! I love the variety--even (some of) the perversity--brought to these compositions. Thanks Dave for another perfectly crystalized rant.
In my youth, a century or so ago, I could never understand why Sibelius’ first and second symphonies were constantly performed but the fifth wasn’t, at least, not nearly as often. So, I started asking every music lover I knew, and almost always it was because they hated the finale’s last five notes. Well, that the phenomenon you describe could be applied to an entire composition, especially one as glorious as the Sibelius fifth, has to be the worst example of snobbery in the music world. How easily listeners can lose the joy in great music!
Thanks Dave
Dave, you hit the nail on the head, a lot of this is self appointed experts who are just soo knowlegeable that they can detect things that vary from either the score, or more commonly, what they think it should be. If playing it exactly as written is the goal, digitize the score and play it through a computer, one recording is all you need.
Classical music thrives on variation, it is on the nature of the performance. It is human factors, even the mistakes, it is in a concertmaster or section principal and how they lead.
It reminds me of violin teachers that obsess on perfect intonation and perfect bowings and vibrato, and the kids they teach play perfectly, they can rip through a paganini caprice perfectly...and they are boring as hell, bc there is no infividuality, it literally is robotic.
Obsessing about 'mistakes', about not playing it the way it is written, destroys the piece. Obviously a bad performance is a bad performsnce , poor tone quality, crazy dynamics, can ruin a performance, or lackluster playing with no energy.
I am blessed i guess that i dont read scores or am not a scholar of the composer, and enjoy the performance based on how it makes me feel.
Reminds me of a great line from Frasier: ""What is the one thing better than an exquisite meal? An exquisite meal with one tiny flaw we can pick at all night!"
LOL!
My main goal in listening to music is to enjoy the listening moment, let the emotion flow. I have no time to spend on too much pin pointing details. But, I also have fun to comparing different versions of a musical composition. It is part of my musical journey! Many thanks to you Dave to help me with that!
Your example of Bernstein's treatment of the final note of Mahler's 7th reminded me of his treatment of the final note(s) of Nielsen's 5th. There he omitted the grace note that some performers play. When I first heard a performance that included it (after I was thoroughly familiar with Bernstein's recording), I was amazed that the impression made by a 30+ minute symphony could be so improved (IMHO) by including such a minor detail.
With few exceptions, however, I agree with your general point. One should expect minor deviations from the score in almost every performance. That's part of what makes one interpretation different from another -- minor changes in tempo, volume, balance, etc. happen frequently, and many of them are not indicated in the score. If every interpretation were a mechanically faithful literal execution of the score, we'd only need one recording of each work -- hmm, that would save a lot of money and collecting effort.
Does “don’t sweat the small stuff” extend to instrumental flubs or obtrusive coughs from the audience in live recordings? One of my favorite (pause to don necktie) Beethoven Ninths is Klaus Tennstedt’s with the London Phil at a 1989 Proms concert (the BBC disc, not the later one on the LPO label). The horns are occasionally wayward, the soloists are less than stellar, the Royal Albert Hall acoustic is cavernous; and flaws be damned, it’s an urgent, untamed, compelling performance. The Ferenc Fricsay Berlin Phil Ninth is flub-free, has the best solo quartet of all time, and deserves its status as a (the?) reference recording. Still, when I want to be absorbed and swept along in the Ninth, I reach for Tennstedt. Over time, I’ve come to tolerate - even anticipate - its flaws. A perfect Ninth is as unobtainable as universal brotherhood on this earthly plane. Feel free to borrow that rationale for your defective or quirky favorites.
That's what I said. Everyone has their own preferences, but the concept still applies.
The brass in Jochum’s Dresden Bruckner cycle may exhibit a certain “edginess” (compared to the Bavarian Radio & Berlin Phil brass in his DG cycle), but they DO add a certain quelque-chose to the MUSIC…especially in the 5th and the 9th.
Constantin Silvestri’s opening of Tchaikovsky 4th symphony seems to me a good example of that 1% that does not matter when you listen to the rest
Yes, wow is that opening weird.
It's not just weird; it's completely wrong. And to have that rhythm come back in the finale corrupted the same way is maddening.
For a very long time I only knew Karajan's recording of Prokoviev's first "classical" symphony. When I heard other recordings I was flabbergasted, because these sounded completely different.
Dave, you just gave me a wonderful bit of advice. Whenever I listen to Bruckner's 8th, I focus too much on how the last three chords of the whole symphony are played to the detriment of my appreciation of the whole performance. I will make an effort (not an obsession) to adjust this. Regarding Mahler 7, I grew up with the Abravanel recording. When i heard Lenny's Sony recording. I was thrilled with the whole thing and loved his take on the ending! Thanks for the music lesson!
I had the same issue with the end of Bruckner's 8th, especially since the last three notes are marked "rit."---what to do and when exactly to do it?
You are absolutely right, Dave. We all have our own perspectives and idiosyncrasies. I heard the Cleveland Orchestra play Bruckner 4 in Vienna this September. The tympani are still too soft!😂
That's interesting because Welser-Möst (if that's who it was) likes them harder, usually.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I found them very unsatisfying. Almost muddy. But then, I do prefer the Berlin tympani... so again, it could be my persective...
Great video with a great approach, in fact the only one. I had trouble with Klemperer as too slow, until I really listened to all his works. I completely reversed course on his Bruckner 6th, a real favorite of mine, after I just listened. Same with the Mackerras Brahms' first which was also an ear opener for me. Yes, the variety of interpretations by serious artists like Klemperer and Mackerras is a real blessing. And by the way, just because I am way down here in New Zealand, and comment infrequently, does NOT mean I am not watching. Cheers, Chuck
Thank you, Chuck.
Funny thing-I think LB draws out the raspberry cheer for too long in his remake of Ives’s Second Symphony, more so than his first recording. But his interpretations demonstrate his love for the work.
Absolutely. And there I believe we have Ives' own reaction to Bernstein's performance after hearing it on the radio, not at all entirely favorable.
Those people that complain about the ending of Bernstein's Mahler 7 make me curious about how much "more important " issues slipped by they didn't/don't notice.
I would understand if Bernstein had the trumpet break into a 12 bar bebop solo in the middle, but come on 😅
Good points, Dave. I am of the opinion that Bernstein actually improved the ending of the Mahler 7th with that little change, but understand the purists on this. Which brings up my only real obsession about interpretation. If you mess up the finale, you leave a bad taste in the ear. I can listen to an hour long symphony with any number of odities of tempo, etc. but if you screw with the finale, you have lost me. Just my take.
Fair enough. I don't know many people who would tolerate a bad finale even if the preceding stuff was great. I sure wouldn't.
This is a very interesting point!!@@DavesClassicalGuide
So agree with you, Dave!!
What a great video on the perspective on listening! Dave, I have a video content suggestion: I am very curious into knowing what are some crucial element of a symphony (such as how hard to nail Brahms’s 3rd). That would be fascinating to hear your views on what are the most important aspect of some major pieces ❤ great admiration for your perspective
Are there any exceptions to this rule? I'm thinking of Oleg Caetani's recording of Shostakovich 4 and that last note...
There are exceptions to every rule.
But I cannot hear the tam-tam at the climax of the second movement of Mahler 5!
Yes, it's a crime, but it's true of some of my favorite versions (Karajan, for example).
Dare I mention, once again, the final note of Schubert's Great C Major? To your point, it is a single note at the end of a moderately lengthy symphony that always seems to ignite adamantly disproportionate reactions.
Yes, that's one of those potential exceptions, except that the vast majority of the performance that take the (obviously wrong) diminuendo at the end aren't great performances to begin with.
@DavesClassicalGuide Amen! When I took a creative writing class in college, the professor (who was also a music lover and taught an interdisciplinary course on opera and drama) devised a test quoting various poetry passages but with one word left out which the student had to fill in from a multiple choice list. One word and one word only was the mot juste.
Conductors who choose a dim. at the end of the Schubert despite the obvious implied contextual ending would flunk. Just as would any conductor who ended the New World symphony ff instead of Dvorak's expressively moving, sensitive (and genius) fade out. The Norringtons will end Schubert's 9th softly, the Szells will not.
Toscanini, not at all the literalist of the caricatures, ends the Berlioz Fete at the Capulets with an emphatic, forceful near staccato stop and not the held chords in the winds after it. You may not like it, but it doesn't affect the terrifc elan and vivacity of the overall conception.
I suppose there must be people out there with a stopwatch in their hands who reject a Bartok performance if it doesn't adhere to the composer's stated section and movement timings?
Interesting! makes me wonder: are composers themselves partly to blame? That is, just as there are chord and line guys, I wonder if there are some (I think immediately of Wagner and perhaps romantics generally) who make listeners tolerate many minutes of music before getting their socks knocked off by an explosively transcendent moment, as distinct from, say, Bach and Haydn whose music is a continuous flow of delightful if less make or break moments.
Bernstein also holds the last note of Ives's 2nd symphony a bit longer than written. So what? It enhances the effect of the dissonance.
Sometimes the last minutes of the Dvorak #7 last movement are re-orchestrated with the horns to reinforce the violins as in the earlier passage in the exposition in the dominant key. It sounds wonderful with the added horns. What composers would turn their noses to a performance that enhances that performance.
Reminds me of Paul Robinson's complaint in his book about Stokowski. He went nuts over Stokowski adding a slur at the end of his many recordings of Tchaikovsky's fifth symphony. He feels it completely ruins the performance.
But for me Stokie scores points by ignoring Tchaikovsky's full stop just before the coda of the 5th but rather continuing right on with it. OTH, I hate his omission of the last bars of Romeo and Juliet. It's mawkish 1930s Hollywood dreck.
For the record, Bernstein does decrescendo/crescendo at the end Mahler 7 in his later DG recording as well. I know this because I have the recording and I was there at Avery Fisher Hall when he did it. It’s fine as far as I’m concerned. I generally agree with you on this issue. But I do hear things that maybe others don’t and I look at its influence with regard to the pacing of the work as a whole. It usually doesn’t bother me much if I don’t like that spot or this spot. It’s more of a head scratcher.
I was there too. I just didn't remember that detail, probably because I didn't see anything unusual about it!
Hi. I will not always agree with you but that’s sorta natural. So, for example, I do think those two Nachtmusik movement should be a bit quicker than Bernstein, but that’s just my feeling. The second Nacht music seems to me (at least) to be something to do with don giovanni. So, the symphony does not have a slow movement, which is why apparently (not me) people don’t like it.
You have made a bit of a thing about the very end of Blomstedt’s Nielsen 4, so although I don’t have an issue with the end of the Sony Mahler 7, well, you know
Apples and oranges. The Bernstein is one note--the Nielsen is a passage lasting nearly a minute.
I wonder if the close monitoring of an interpretation takes away from a full enjoyment. Can you "lose yourself" in the music if you're constantly monitoring a performance's faith to your idea of what the work is? If you're someone who does judge every moment of a performance, try to drop that and see if you can have a different and actually a more immersive experience! That's my experience.