Your comment about Leonard Bernstein's DG recording of Mahler's First containing "less" obvious interpretation than its Columbia predecessor reminded me of a story Jack Lemmon told about making his first film, "It Should Happen to You." He came in on the day he was to shoot his big scene determined to pour so much intensity into it that all Hollywood would take notice and proclaim him the next great movie actor. The film's veteran director, George Cukor, shot the first take and told Lemmon, "Less, Jack, less." Lemmon toned it down a bit for the next take, and again Cukor said, "Less, Jack, less." Lemmon did 10 more takes of the sequence, each time toning it down a bit more than the time before, until after take 12 his patience snapped. He told Cukor, "Look, if I give you any less, I won't be acting at all!" Cukor said, "That's right, Jack, that's right." Lemmon later said that was the best advice he ever got from a director.
Hear, hear. From Rameau's 1722 book on harmony: "However much progress music may have made until our time, it appears that the more sensitive the ear has become to the marvelous effects of this art, the less inquisitive the mind has been about its true principles. One might say that reason has lost its rights, while experience has acquired a certain authority." He was talking about theory, but I think it applies to performance too.
I think this is exactly right. To add an example: I admire Yunchan Lim and think that he is a generational talent, but I find his recent Chopin etudes release studied and forced. There is an effort to vary the material on its second/further iteration; to find an inner voice/line in almost every piece; and to overplay fortes and rubato/shadow too pointedly, adding unneeded complication to the score. Of course he meant to do all this, given his prodigious talent. As you suggested, it would be interesting a simplified, relaxed, more authentically singing reiteration 20 years from now, after he has shed some of the pressure that has come with everything he did since the Cliburn where he was praised for playing Rach 3 "differently."
I believe it has to do with a "contraction of the repertoire". It seems to me that at concert halls the variety of works performed regularly is shrinking. Yes, thera are some works trending up, such as Bruckner or Rachmaninov. At the same time, other works are less and less programmed. Past standards from Franck, Schumann, Mendelssohn and others are unfrequently played in concert now. When talking about the recorded works, there are two options: either record lesser played works (Respighi other than the Roman Trilogy, Scriabin, Finzi, Glazuinov, Gade, ...), either record the smaller top tier repertoire with a persona twist (Currentzis, Kopatchinskaja, Lang Lang, ...). In both cases the expectation is that "something different" will make for bigger sales and cater to those who are tired of another Beethoven symphony cycle, one more Tchaikovsky violin concerto. At the end, as concert halls see a smaller number of works played regularly, let's record forgotten works - great idea - or lets record wht standard repertoire disfiguring the work so it sound like a different one. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this, do you believe the concert hall standarad repertoire is shrinking?
There's a generation of pianists who reached maturity before the CD era who I find most refreshing in their service to the music. Two I heard in concert were Moura Lympany and Ivan Moravec, giving unfussy - almost "Ürtext" - performances that just seemed like I was hearing an unfiltered version of the work. It was hearing the former in the Schumann Concerto about 30 years ago that immediately sparked the reaction you''re talking about here. Also, I find that it's the very late "salon" Horowitz recordings that I listen to most. They are intensely personal and cover repertoire that even I could attempt.
Great talk. Notably, Bernstein's Concertgebouw Schubert recordings and Mahler recordings all came from the same concerts. The Mahler 1st was the closing work at a concert that opened with the Schubert 8th. Des Knaben Wunderhorn opened the concert that closed with the Schubert 9th. Those recordings really do document one of the great partnerships between conductor and orchestra.
I ended up thinking about my days studying piano during this video and thinking "yep, that was me". That the great artists can put themselves aside is something we probably shouldn't take for granted
Oh, gosh, yes. I used to trowel on the rubato, sustain pedal . . . self-invented dynamics and tempos (tempi?). Poor Chopin. "Let the music happen" is grand advice.
I think I remember hearing something Fischer-Dieskau once said about how as a young singer he felt the need to draw things out and be very fluid with the timing of a particular song for the sake of expressivity, and how as he matured he learned to play them much more straight and allow the natural expressivity of the piece come out on its own. Frankly I haven't heard all of his recordings so I don't know how much he actually carried that through in his music but it's a really lovely piece of wisdom anyway. (Hopefully I'm not misremembering who said it.)
For instruments that don't have a super extensive repertoire, i imagine the problem is worse. The Mozart clarinet concerto now seems to be rerecorded so much that you start thinking of what will next season's record of it by artist "X" will be like as compared to last season's.
Amen to this!! The (at least audiable) lack of an overall conception of a work by several conductors destroys many performances and gives the same result to the listeners: a lack of an overall picture of what they have heard, and ultimatly a rather uninteresting listening experience. Instead one experience a row of (often) less successfull attempts to be different.
Are there any conductors who are/were publicly against releasing a work two or three times? I'm certainly glad Blomstedt released a second Nielsen cycle because it is a masterpiece.
The truth of the matter is that the classical recording industry is extremely oversaturated. Especially considering how small the buying market is. There is no reason for another version of a Beethoven 5 to exist. We have enough. Too many. But then the artists will have nothing to record and do live performances only. The need to do something different not only comes from artists who re-record works but from all artists. Because they need to justify recording a work that exist in a million outstandingly fine versions in the first place. The emergence of period performance is also an excuse for the classical artistic community to stay alive in the world of the recorded music industry. And as inaccurate as some of those performance practices might be, it is a life line for artists. I am always in search of a version of a work that best and most clearly show as much of the composer’s written notes as possible without distorting the intentioned proportional balance. As long as artist try to realize that, I’d say record away. But if they are gonna give us a similar performance of a previous recording, then don’t bother. There are way too many of those already out there.
One of the saddest things in music is the making of recordings by artists whose techniques no longer allow them to equal the quality of their previous recordings. This cannot be disguised, no matter what differences they apply to their new version. What a blessing it is to know when to retire, and to do so willingly. Some artists, such as Horowitz and Rubinstein, as you mentioned, never needed to be concerned about this.
If I'm right, I think you've obliquely touched on this in one of your previous talks a while go in which you recounted how you'd been waiting ages in an ante-room for an up & coming hot-shot conductor to do an interview with you & they blatantly said it was your job to make them sound good in print. It encapsulates the whole problem today more than ever: Ego + vanity + PR & marketing + recording contact + no critical filter = rubbish music making committed to disc. And unfortunately this sum sadly adds up most of the time. I've often been guided by some of your picks in recent years on newer recordings so thanks for that (no-one including me knows everything going on out there!) but I have generally stuck with the older recordings I know from a time when the competition was probably more substantial, meaningful & distinct than it is now.
You articulated your thoughts very well, as always! I think It takes years to trust the concept of 'less is more'! I think it's also tied to the cult of the 'artist as hero', where THEIR name appears in bigger font than the composer's! Recent purchases of Yuchan Lim's breathless Chopin Etudes, and Tarmo Peltokoski's bland Mozart Symphonies are going straight to the op-shop! Will I never learn?!!!
It depends on the artist. Stokowski's fourth version of Scherherazade, for Decca was superior to all of his previous versions. His Brahms 4 from 1974 was also superior to his earlier recordings. I generally prefer most stereo remakes, but not always. Like Szell's Slavonic Dances. I find his mono set to have a slight edge. But nothing drastically different. And yes, like you stated,, sometimes age is a factor. So for me, it just depends on who I'm listening too.
I believe recordings used to document natural changes in artist's approaches and not artists making wilful chamges just to be different BECAUSE it was going to be a recording. When Walter was asked to redo the Brahms symphonies because they'd be done on stereo, he saw as an opportunity to "undo the sins of the past" with what he saw as a deeper, more measured approach. But not as an excuse to remake the cycle all over again. Whether one prefers the earlier Philharmonic versions to the Columbia Symphony is a matter of opinion (I prefer the earlier set.) When Beecham switched from Columbia/Philips back to EMI in the 1950s, he usually recorded new repertoire and didn't do many remakes, except (mostly) some Delius. When he remade some things because of long play vs. 78rpm, the results are usually more fussy and interventionist. Toscanini's remakes became often stricter and less flexible. His 1951 Beethoven' 7th is easily inferior to his 1935 recording. ( But his 1952 Brahms 2nd is the best of the lot while his Brahms 3rd is the worst.) It appears then that recordings decades ago merely documented changes in a performer's development and outlook (as you discussed with Rubinstein) and not instances of making changes to justify yet another commercial release.
I agree, but I have such a hard time with the inferior sound of the 1935 recording, so I listen to his 1951 seventh. I have to be in a certain mood for older recordings that I can forgo the sound quality. Fortunately, many of the old recordings sound better than ever thanks to great remastering.
Here you're talking about the desire of artists to do things differently from what they've done in the past. But I wonder if there might be a possible follow-up talk about the desire that sometimes seems to exist simply to do things differently from anybody else, possibly as a selling argument, in an attempt to stand out in an already very crowded arena?
In my mind this phenomenon especially applies to Krystian Zimerman's repeated recordings of the Chopin piano concertos, where each recording was worse than the previous one.
Great chat. Things that annoy me is when, in the effort to be different, performers change dynamics, tempi, add or subtract insturments, and generally fiddle with what the composer wrote. Of course there are some exceptions, but they are few.
Unlike Dave Hurwitz, I tend to enjoy slower performances, for instance in the Brüder Martin/Frere Jacques movement of Mahler's First. The timpani always tell me if it's going to be a tempo to my liking. Today, June 8, 2024, I attended a performance of Mahler's Second in Oviedo, Spain. The two local orchestras teamed up to produce a performance that was way above what I exopected. The restrained tempo of the Totenfeier allowed plenty of breathing space. Of course the most important thing is the intensity and the quality of the musicians. I've heard better, but altogether I can say that I enjoyed myslef like a pig in a mud puddle (in Spanish, disfruté como un cerdo en un charco).
@@DavesClassicalGuide I can imagine your smirk as you wrote that sentence. I recall that every now and then you do like a slower performance, but you definitely prize brisker tempi. You often speak highly of Charles Mackerras, often stressing the quick pace at which he plays whatever piece of music. That makes me wary, because I am of the slower persuasion. My stepmother has always accused me of having three gears: slow, slower, and reverse!!
Isn't one consideration the fact that recordings go out of print so quickly? If an artist's first recording of a piece goes out of print, doesn't it make sense for them to make another one? I know that doesn't justify all re-recordings, but...
Absolutely a factor. As a "consumer," I can only add to my collection from what's available. Can easily sympathize with any artist who finds his first attempt out-of-print (i.e. no CD available).
There are also artists who never changed their concepts about the works they interpreted, but who continued recording them along their lives. Karajan being a case in point. I think that is the reason because his 70s recordings (not his first or his late ones) are considered his best. At this time he dominated the BPO as to get just what he wanted (in the 60s he didn't yet have this control, and in the 50s, the recordings he made with the PO where so much Legge's as his) and was not so mannered in "the approach" as in the 80s.
Thanks Dave, very interesting. Agree re Winterreise, although even with DFD I heard him doing it with pollini and sufficiently different to make it worthwhile (Orfeo). I lecture and I understand the impulse to make the next time “better”, or interestingly different. I’d love some of these artists to do a wider range of things and get out of their tunnel (as you know, Bostridge has a book out about Winterreise where he talks about this obsession with particular works). I think everyone has a tendency when starting out to “try too hard” as might be the case with your pianist examples but about 20 years on you égalise that that’s what you were doing….
I cant stand the micro management in many of the more recent HIP/authentic recordings of Haydn Symphonies, where every phrase is carefully curated. Also, Currentzis, e.g. Beethoven 5 & 7. OMG!
Your comment about Leonard Bernstein's DG recording of Mahler's First containing "less" obvious interpretation than its Columbia predecessor reminded me of a story Jack Lemmon told about making his first film, "It Should Happen to You." He came in on the day he was to shoot his big scene determined to pour so much intensity into it that all Hollywood would take notice and proclaim him the next great movie actor. The film's veteran director, George Cukor, shot the first take and told Lemmon, "Less, Jack, less." Lemmon toned it down a bit for the next take, and again Cukor said, "Less, Jack, less." Lemmon did 10 more takes of the sequence, each time toning it down a bit more than the time before, until after take 12 his patience snapped. He told Cukor, "Look, if I give you any less, I won't be acting at all!" Cukor said, "That's right, Jack, that's right." Lemmon later said that was the best advice he ever got from a director.
Hear, hear.
From Rameau's 1722 book on harmony:
"However much progress music may have made until our time, it appears that the more sensitive the ear has become to the marvelous effects of this art, the less inquisitive the mind has been about its true principles. One might say that reason has lost its rights, while experience has acquired a certain authority."
He was talking about theory, but I think it applies to performance too.
I think this is exactly right. To add an example: I admire Yunchan Lim and think that he is a generational talent, but I find his recent Chopin etudes release studied and forced. There is an effort to vary the material on its second/further iteration; to find an inner voice/line in almost every piece; and to overplay fortes and rubato/shadow too pointedly, adding unneeded complication to the score. Of course he meant to do all this, given his prodigious talent. As you suggested, it would be interesting a simplified, relaxed, more authentically singing reiteration 20 years from now, after he has shed some of the pressure that has come with everything he did since the Cliburn where he was praised for playing Rach 3 "differently."
I believe it has to do with a "contraction of the repertoire". It seems to me that at concert halls the variety of works performed regularly is shrinking. Yes, thera are some works trending up, such as Bruckner or Rachmaninov. At the same time, other works are less and less programmed. Past standards from Franck, Schumann, Mendelssohn and others are unfrequently played in concert now. When talking about the recorded works, there are two options: either record lesser played works (Respighi other than the Roman Trilogy, Scriabin, Finzi, Glazuinov, Gade, ...), either record the smaller top tier repertoire with a persona twist (Currentzis, Kopatchinskaja, Lang Lang, ...). In both cases the expectation is that "something different" will make for bigger sales and cater to those who are tired of another Beethoven symphony cycle, one more Tchaikovsky violin concerto. At the end, as concert halls see a smaller number of works played regularly, let's record forgotten works - great idea - or lets record wht standard repertoire disfiguring the work so it sound like a different one. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this, do you believe the concert hall standarad repertoire is shrinking?
I've said that for many years now.
There's a generation of pianists who reached maturity before the CD era who I find most refreshing in their service to the music. Two I heard in concert were Moura Lympany and Ivan Moravec, giving unfussy - almost "Ürtext" - performances that just seemed like I was hearing an unfiltered version of the work. It was hearing the former in the Schumann Concerto about 30 years ago that immediately sparked the reaction you''re talking about here.
Also, I find that it's the very late "salon" Horowitz recordings that I listen to most. They are intensely personal and cover repertoire that even I could attempt.
“There is one art, no more, no less: to do all things with artlessness.” Piet Hein
Music is not 200 meter sprint, to achieve one second faster record.
Great talk. Notably, Bernstein's Concertgebouw Schubert recordings and Mahler recordings all came from the same concerts. The Mahler 1st was the closing work at a concert that opened with the Schubert 8th. Des Knaben Wunderhorn opened the concert that closed with the Schubert 9th. Those recordings really do document one of the great partnerships between conductor and orchestra.
I ended up thinking about my days studying piano during this video and thinking "yep, that was me". That the great artists can put themselves aside is something we probably shouldn't take for granted
Oh, gosh, yes. I used to trowel on the rubato, sustain pedal . . . self-invented dynamics and tempos (tempi?). Poor Chopin. "Let the music happen" is grand advice.
I think I remember hearing something Fischer-Dieskau once said about how as a young singer he felt the need to draw things out and be very fluid with the timing of a particular song for the sake of expressivity, and how as he matured he learned to play them much more straight and allow the natural expressivity of the piece come out on its own. Frankly I haven't heard all of his recordings so I don't know how much he actually carried that through in his music but it's a really lovely piece of wisdom anyway. (Hopefully I'm not misremembering who said it.)
For instruments that don't have a super extensive repertoire, i imagine the problem is worse. The Mozart clarinet concerto now seems to be rerecorded so much that you start thinking of what will next season's record of it by artist "X" will be like as compared to last season's.
Amen to this!! The (at least audiable) lack of an overall conception of a work by several conductors destroys many performances and gives the same result to the listeners: a lack of an overall picture of what they have heard, and ultimatly a rather uninteresting listening experience. Instead one experience a row of (often) less successfull attempts to be different.
Are there any conductors who are/were publicly against releasing a work two or three times?
I'm certainly glad Blomstedt released a second Nielsen cycle because it is a masterpiece.
The truth of the matter is that the classical recording industry is extremely oversaturated. Especially considering how small the buying market is. There is no reason for another version of a Beethoven 5 to exist. We have enough. Too many. But then the artists will have nothing to record and do live performances only. The need to do something different not only comes from artists who re-record works but from all artists. Because they need to justify recording a work that exist in a million outstandingly fine versions in the first place. The emergence of period performance is also an excuse for the classical artistic community to stay alive in the world of the recorded music industry. And as inaccurate as some of those performance practices might be, it is a life line for artists. I am always in search of a version of a work that best and most clearly show as much of the composer’s written notes as possible without distorting the intentioned proportional balance. As long as artist try to realize that, I’d say record away. But if they are gonna give us a similar performance of a previous recording, then don’t bother. There are way too many of those already out there.
One of the saddest things in music is the making of recordings by artists whose techniques no longer allow them to equal the quality of their previous recordings. This cannot be disguised, no matter what differences they apply to their new version.
What a blessing it is to know when to retire, and to do so willingly. Some artists, such as Horowitz and Rubinstein, as you mentioned, never needed to be concerned about this.
Dave a new video series on which remake is better than the original would be welcome
If I'm right, I think you've obliquely touched on this in one of your previous talks a while go in which you recounted how you'd been waiting ages in an ante-room for an up & coming hot-shot conductor to do an interview with you & they blatantly said it was your job to make them sound good in print. It encapsulates the whole problem today more than ever: Ego + vanity + PR & marketing + recording contact + no critical filter = rubbish music making committed to disc. And unfortunately this sum sadly adds up most of the time. I've often been guided by some of your picks in recent years on newer recordings so thanks for that (no-one including me knows everything going on out there!) but I have generally stuck with the older recordings I know from a time when the competition was probably more substantial, meaningful & distinct than it is now.
You articulated your thoughts very well, as always! I think It takes years to trust the concept of 'less is more'! I think it's also tied to the cult of the 'artist as hero', where THEIR name appears in bigger font than the composer's! Recent purchases of Yuchan Lim's breathless Chopin Etudes, and Tarmo Peltokoski's bland Mozart Symphonies are going straight to the op-shop! Will I never learn?!!!
It depends on the artist. Stokowski's fourth version of Scherherazade, for Decca was superior to all of his previous versions. His Brahms 4 from 1974 was also superior to his earlier recordings. I generally prefer most stereo remakes, but not always. Like Szell's Slavonic Dances. I find his mono set to have a slight edge. But nothing drastically different. And yes, like you stated,, sometimes age is a factor. So for me, it just depends on who I'm listening too.
I believe recordings used to document natural changes in artist's approaches and not artists making wilful chamges just to be different BECAUSE it was going to be a recording.
When Walter was asked to redo the Brahms symphonies because they'd be done on stereo, he saw as an opportunity to "undo the sins of the past" with what he saw as a deeper, more measured approach. But not as an excuse to remake the cycle all over again. Whether one prefers the earlier Philharmonic versions to the Columbia Symphony is a matter of opinion (I prefer the earlier set.)
When Beecham switched from Columbia/Philips back to EMI in the 1950s, he usually recorded new repertoire and didn't do many remakes, except (mostly) some Delius. When he remade some things because of long play vs. 78rpm, the results are usually more fussy and interventionist.
Toscanini's remakes became often stricter and less flexible. His 1951 Beethoven' 7th is easily inferior to his 1935 recording. ( But his 1952 Brahms 2nd is the best of the lot while his Brahms 3rd is the worst.)
It appears then that recordings decades ago merely documented changes in a performer's development and outlook (as you discussed with Rubinstein) and not instances of making changes to justify yet another commercial release.
I agree, but I have such a hard time with the inferior sound of the 1935 recording, so I listen to his 1951 seventh. I have to be in a certain mood for older recordings that I can forgo the sound quality. Fortunately, many of the old recordings sound better than ever thanks to great remastering.
Here you're talking about the desire of artists to do things differently from what they've done in the past. But I wonder if there might be a possible follow-up talk about the desire that sometimes seems to exist simply to do things differently from anybody else, possibly as a selling argument, in an attempt to stand out in an already very crowded arena?
That's been discussed very frequently in reviews of new releases.
If artists want to do something differently they would have to write their own piece, it would be different enough. :)
In my mind this phenomenon especially applies to Krystian Zimerman's repeated recordings of the Chopin piano concertos, where each recording was worse than the previous one.
Great chat.
Things that annoy me is when, in the effort to be different, performers change dynamics, tempi, add or subtract insturments, and generally fiddle with what the composer wrote. Of course there are some exceptions, but they are few.
Unlike Dave Hurwitz, I tend to enjoy slower performances, for instance in the Brüder Martin/Frere Jacques movement of Mahler's First. The timpani always tell me if it's going to be a tempo to my liking. Today, June 8, 2024, I attended a performance of Mahler's Second in Oviedo, Spain. The two local orchestras teamed up to produce a performance that was way above what I exopected. The restrained tempo of the Totenfeier allowed plenty of breathing space. Of course the most important thing is the intensity and the quality of the musicians. I've heard better, but altogether I can say that I enjoyed myslef like a pig in a mud puddle (in Spanish, disfruté como un cerdo en un charco).
I don't know where you get that generalization of my dislike of slower performances. It's nonsense.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I can imagine your smirk as you wrote that sentence. I recall that every now and then you do like a slower performance, but you definitely prize brisker tempi. You often speak highly of Charles Mackerras, often stressing the quick pace at which he plays whatever piece of music. That makes me wary, because I am of the slower persuasion. My stepmother has always accused me of having three gears: slow, slower, and reverse!!
Isn't one consideration the fact that recordings go out of print so quickly? If an artist's first recording of a piece goes out of print, doesn't it make sense for them to make another one? I know that doesn't justify all re-recordings, but...
Absolutely a factor. As a "consumer," I can only add to my collection from what's available. Can easily sympathize with any artist who finds his first attempt out-of-print (i.e. no CD available).
There are also artists who never changed their concepts about the works they interpreted, but who continued recording them along their lives. Karajan being a case in point. I think that is the reason because his 70s recordings (not his first or his late ones) are considered his best. At this time he dominated the BPO as to get just what he wanted (in the 60s he didn't yet have this control, and in the 50s, the recordings he made with the PO where so much Legge's as his) and was not so mannered in "the approach" as in the 80s.
Thanks Dave, very interesting. Agree re Winterreise, although even with DFD I heard him doing it with pollini and sufficiently different to make it worthwhile (Orfeo). I lecture and I understand the impulse to make the next time “better”, or interestingly different. I’d love some of these artists to do a wider range of things and get out of their tunnel (as you know, Bostridge has a book out about Winterreise where he talks about this obsession with particular works). I think everyone has a tendency when starting out to “try too hard” as might be the case with your pianist examples but about 20 years on you égalise that that’s what you were doing….
I cant stand the micro management in many of the more recent HIP/authentic recordings of Haydn Symphonies, where every phrase is carefully curated. Also, Currentzis, e.g. Beethoven 5 & 7. OMG!
I'm with you.
Great video, as always! You should have worn the Classicstoday t-shirt 'abnormal is fine, stupid is not'. )