Furtwängler

[mathias broucek]

I know it's been said many times before but he was a genius, wasn't he?

My iPod's "random" function (which isn't mathematically random...) keeps throwing up bits of the Audite RIAS set and every time it does I'm just STUNNED by the quality of the music making. It's extremely flexible in tempo but somehow in a very natural, unforced way. And his ability to make transitions work is almost supernatural.

Whilst the Audite set sounds pretty good, it's beyond tragic that the sound given to Reiner in Chicago in 1954 was never given to Furtwangler and the BPO......

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

For total immersion, or just to dip into now and then, you couldn't do better than to acquire this, in my opinion:-

[Conchis]

I'm currently listening to the RIAA Ring. Completely agree. I wish he'd lived into the stereo era.

[Petrushka]

... it's beyond tragic that the sound given to Reiner in Chicago in 1954 was never given to Furtwangler and the BPO......

A thought I've had many a time and oft, MB. Tragic indeed.

[richardfinegold]

A thought I've had many a time and oft, MB. Tragic indeed.

Considering it was the Germans that developed recording on tape, and even in stereo (there was a gieseking Emperor from the tail end of WWII), whom are we to blame?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's some surprising good sound from the 1940s' broadcasts and from the later EMI studio recordings, though not so much with the BPO.

[silvestrione]

There's some surprising good sound from the 1940s' broadcasts and from the later EMI studio recordings, though not so much with the BPO.

The Testament Bruckner 5 is pretty good for sound, and stunning for music-making.

[Gordon]

Considering it was the Germans that developed recording on tape, and even in stereo (there was a gieseking Emperor from the tail end of WWII), whom are we to blame?

I'm not convinced that blame is in order here. As with all technologies they develop and improve quickly so that the earliest forms are not as good as the later. The improvements between 1943 and 1954 were significant in bandwidth for one thing and S/N for another. The tape machine mechanics and electronics - AC bias was known to the Germans in 1941 if only by accident - themselves and also the tape formulations and manufacturing processes. Not to mention improved microphones with adequate response and separation. It has always been an oddity that EMI's first machine, BTR1, in regular use from about 1948 did not use good AC bias - excess distortion because of an impure oscillator. See here for an account of its performance compared with that of an AEG-Telefunken K7, the type of machine on which the RRG recorded the Gieseking etc performances:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1948-30.pdf

The BTR3 was EMI's workhorse stereo machine but that did not come along as a production machine until about 1957/8. This date co-incides with the final industry standards agreement on the stereo disc format. Until then EMI stereo used modified forms of BTR2. What the Ampex [and others] machines in the US - 3 track on half inch tape [not quarter inch as elsewhere] as used by RCA/Victor for Reiner in Chicago - did for bias distortion I'm not sure but I can't believe they would have not recognised the need for oscillator purity. Decca used BTR1's to start but soon moved on to 2 track Ampex. Another feature of US stereo was 3 spaced omnis microphone approach as also used by Mercury. EMI used Blumlein at first but soon followed Decca into a tree set up. The Germans appear to have used a Blumlein approach.

The German machines were capable of stereo from 1943/5 and it is known that about 250 stereo recordings were extant at that time some of them being by Furtwangler. However the vagaries of the war put paid to all but 3 that survive - Gieseking's and Karajan's Bruckner and a Brahms Serenade. So if you need something to blame let it be the chaos of WW2 - and perhaps the RAF/USAF. The Russians are known to have made off with many RRG tape recordings after WW2 and these were eventually returned and many were issued by DG and others like Koch. It doesn't seem that any of these were stereo. Look here:

http://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/features/missinggermanstere/

Furtwangler's time with EMI until his death [not forgetting a period immediately after the war with Decca, including that stand off with Culshaw about too many microphones for his LPO March 22-25th 1948 Brahms 2 at Kingsway] gave him access to BTR1's on tape but there was no stereo at EMI in London until very late '54 and their first releasable recording was Prokofiev with the Philharmonia and Malko made at Kingsway in February 1955 a year later than RCA in Chicago.

For more info look here under the "Magnetophon" heading down the page.

http://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/ManufacturersAEGMagnetophon.html

[richardfinegold]

gee, Gordon, you take all the fun out of blaming the Nazis for everything

[slarty]

It is difficult to believe that had he survived the pneumonia that killed him, his ever more difficult battle with encroaching deafness would not have severely dented his podium work. I think that he would have retreated into composition and retired from conducting. His schedule for 1955 would have brought him to the USA with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and a mighty brou-ha-ha that would have been. The Salzburg Festival would have seen him conduct Pfitzner's Palestrina and EMI were due to continue with the next part of the Ring, Siegfried.
As Gordon said, EMI did not really get truly into stereo until 1958 and then they began all the re-recording of the repertoire in Stereo. It is interesting to think of how much or how little Furtwängler would have participated in this knowing his distrust and dislike of the recording processes.
His search for medical treatment against his deafness may well have proved successful, but I personally think that the USA Spring tour through the USA would have finished him. There was so much bad feeling against him in the States that it is unlikely that it would have subsided enough for the tour to have been a success.
One only has to read Daniel Gillis's wonderfully descriptive book "Furtwängler in America" especially concerning Furtwängler's acceptance of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra offer as chief conductor (1949) to realize the amount of hate and bad feeling there was against him.
I remember a conversation with Elizabeth Furtwängler when she said that in November 1954 he had no fight left in him and was content to go.
For me he was undoubtably the greatest conductor of them all.

[richardfinegold]

It is difficult to believe that had he survived the pneumonia that killed him, his ever more difficult battle with encroaching deafness would not have severely dented his podium work. I think that he would have retreated into composition and retired from conducting. His schedule for 1955 would have brought him to the USA with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and a mighty brou-ha-ha that would have been. The Salzburg Festival would have seen him conduct Pfitzner's Palestrina and EMI were due to continue with the next part of the Ring, Siegfried.
As Gordon said, EMI did not really get truly into stereo until 1958 and then they began all the re-recording of the repertoire in Stereo. It is interesting to think of how much or how little Furtwängler would have participated in this knowing his distrust and dislike of the recording processes.
His search for medical treatment against his deafness may well have proved successful, but I personally think that the USA Spring tour through the USA would have finished him. There was so much bad feeling against him in the States that it is unlikely that it would have subsided enough for the tour to have been a success.
One only has to read Daniel Gillis's wonderfully descriptive book "Furtwängler in America" especially concerning Furtwängler's acceptance of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra offer as chief conductor (1949) to realize the amount of hate and bad feeling there was against him.
I remember a conversation with Elizabeth Furtwängler when she said that in November 1954 he had no fight left in him and was content to go.
For me he was undoubtably the greatest conductor of them all.

He suffered from a Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, and from the side effects of the treatments of the day If the pneumonia didn't kill him, some other infectious or hematologic process would have, so his time was up. Most people who have had his condition for as long as he had it are exhausted after a few years, quite apart from any other issue. For him to attempt any tour at that point would have been out of the question.

[slarty]

He suffered from a Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, and from the side effects of the treatments of the day If the pneumonia didn't kill him, some other infectious or hematologic process would have, so his time was up. Most people who have had his condition for as long as he had it are exhausted after a few years, quite apart from any other issue. For him to attempt any tour at that point would have been out of the question.

Thanks for that RFG, it certainly explains his seeming resignation to his fate. He must have known that he would never have been able to undertake that tour.

[Ferretfancy]

Furtwangler's somewhat manipulative behaviour in seeing off his competitors and his willingness to conduct before nazi audiences has of course been mentioned in books and articles, but his failings are for the most part overlooked.

Karajan on the other hand is still censured for similar behaviour, and we are not allowed to forget or forgive. They were both tremendous artists, but Karajan is always the sinner to Furtwangler's saint. Odd.

[Barbirollians]

Karajan joined the party and there is no evidence unlike with Furtwangler that he tried to protect or assist Jewish players in his orchestras .I suspect that is why .

[Beef Oven!]

Furtwangler's somewhat manipulative behaviour in seeing off his competitors and his willingness to conduct before nazi audiences has of course been mentioned in books and articles, but his failings are for the most part overlooked.

Karajan on the other hand is still censured for similar behaviour, and we are not allowed to forget or forgive. They were both tremendous artists, but Karajan is always the sinner to Furtwangler's saint. Odd.

Tall poppies. Karajan developed into a superstar and that gets up people's noses. Furtwangler died within 'moments' after the war and is seen as tragic. Who cares anyway? Two great musicians - let's celebrate them, rather than get all PC about it!