I think Furtwängler's reputation as a conductor has probably dropped off slightly in recent decades, partly because of the much greater availability of recordings in high-quality sound (his recordings, especially the live ones, were often in much poorer quality sound) and partly with the rise of HIPP performances together with the increasing importance placed on accuracy of detail within recordings, as in Building a Library. I often hear reviewers in BaL metaphorically doff the cap to Furtwängler as a historical icon yet criticise the flaws in his performances and it is quite rare that any of his recordings is selected even as a historical choice, not least because BaL provides such a bad framework for bringing out the qualities of WF's performances, the intensity, the art of transition, the conception of the work as an organic whole whose every part relates to the others. Even though most people here will only ever have heard WF through his recordings, he disliked recording and some of his most memorable recordings were actually of live events.
Anyway, for me some of his recordings are among the most intense and eloquent testaments of music-making I know: Haydn symphony no 88; Schubert symphony no 9; Mozart's 39th and 40th symphonies and the 1950 Salzburg Don Giovanni; Beethoven's Eroica with the VPO and the Violin Concerto with Menuhin and the Philharmonia; Schumann's 4th symphony; Bruckner's 7th and 8th (particularly the wartime 8th in 1944); the Tristan und Isolde with Suthaus and Flagstad; Verdi's Otello from Salzburg with Ramon Vinay. It's true that WF's musical personality is strongly present in these performances but I disagree that it is oppressively so, or that it distorts the character of the music: rather, it brings it out so that it is more intensely alive - as in, for instance, the first movement of the Mozart G minor symphony which could almost be a modern interpretation in its fast tempo and powerful rhythmic drive. There are many conductors whose personality is clearly imprinted on their performances - the two Kleibers for instance, or Klemperer, or Karajan or Bernstein - not to mention pianists or singers. That is something I admire, not some false attempt at objective truth.
If I value one thing particularly in WF's work it is that he reminds us that a musical performance is at its best a single non-repeatable event. Even if he conducts a work many times, each of those performances will be different. In the recording age when performances can be replayed endlessly there is the risk of staleness, of a mechanical response in both player and listener. Whatever the flaws in WF's performances - and they were certainly there - staleness and predictability was not one of them. His was, especially in the wartime and post-war recordings, an essentially tragic vision - but then the age he had lived through in his maturity was one of the most tragic in human history. As ferney says, you will not find much wit, sparkle or lightness in his recordings - though there is at times a bucolic quality, as in the 3rd movement of the Haydn 88 or the peasants' scenes in Der Freischütz, and I love the irresistible joie-de-vivre in the finale to the Haydn 88 (and he did record the overture to Die Fledermaus!)
I am never searching for the perfect or the definitive recording, but rather enjoy the many different ways in which works of genius can be performed. I don't often listen to Furtwängler's recordings now - the memory of them is still clear - but, flawed and wonderful, they made a huge impression on me when I was discovering music.
Anyway, for me some of his recordings are among the most intense and eloquent testaments of music-making I know: Haydn symphony no 88; Schubert symphony no 9; Mozart's 39th and 40th symphonies and the 1950 Salzburg Don Giovanni; Beethoven's Eroica with the VPO and the Violin Concerto with Menuhin and the Philharmonia; Schumann's 4th symphony; Bruckner's 7th and 8th (particularly the wartime 8th in 1944); the Tristan und Isolde with Suthaus and Flagstad; Verdi's Otello from Salzburg with Ramon Vinay. It's true that WF's musical personality is strongly present in these performances but I disagree that it is oppressively so, or that it distorts the character of the music: rather, it brings it out so that it is more intensely alive - as in, for instance, the first movement of the Mozart G minor symphony which could almost be a modern interpretation in its fast tempo and powerful rhythmic drive. There are many conductors whose personality is clearly imprinted on their performances - the two Kleibers for instance, or Klemperer, or Karajan or Bernstein - not to mention pianists or singers. That is something I admire, not some false attempt at objective truth.
If I value one thing particularly in WF's work it is that he reminds us that a musical performance is at its best a single non-repeatable event. Even if he conducts a work many times, each of those performances will be different. In the recording age when performances can be replayed endlessly there is the risk of staleness, of a mechanical response in both player and listener. Whatever the flaws in WF's performances - and they were certainly there - staleness and predictability was not one of them. His was, especially in the wartime and post-war recordings, an essentially tragic vision - but then the age he had lived through in his maturity was one of the most tragic in human history. As ferney says, you will not find much wit, sparkle or lightness in his recordings - though there is at times a bucolic quality, as in the 3rd movement of the Haydn 88 or the peasants' scenes in Der Freischütz, and I love the irresistible joie-de-vivre in the finale to the Haydn 88 (and he did record the overture to Die Fledermaus!)
I am never searching for the perfect or the definitive recording, but rather enjoy the many different ways in which works of genius can be performed. I don't often listen to Furtwängler's recordings now - the memory of them is still clear - but, flawed and wonderful, they made a huge impression on me when I was discovering music.
Comment