Conductors who think they know better

[vinteuil]

.

... our Alpie remains an indomitable believer in the Whig (or indeed Marxist-Leninist) Theory of History when it comes to the piano.



.

[Richard Barrett]

... our Alpie remains an indomitable believer in the Whig (or indeed Marxist-Leninist) Theory of History when it comes to the piano.

A Whig view of piano history would entail thinking of that 19th century mechanical contraption, weirdly called a "modern piano" by some, as having long been superseded by digital technology.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A Whig view of piano history would entail thinking of that 19th century mechanical contraption, weirdly called a "modern piano" by some, as having long been superseded by digital technology.

Perhaps Alpie's is more a "Goldilocks Theory of History", then? ("That one's too early, it leaves me cold. That one's too modern and it's got amplification, it makes my blood boil. This one is just right.")

[Dave2002]

Yes. Heaven forbid that the music might actually sound better.

But it often doesn't!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Perhaps Alpie's is more a "Goldilocks Theory of History", then? ("That one's too early, it leaves me cold. That one's too modern and it's got amplification, it makes my blood boil. This one is just right.")

I like that analogy: one that shows intelligent judgement.

I'm less keen on puritanical idealism.

Except on amplification.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I like that analogy: one that shows intelligent judgement.

... and breaking and entering, theft, and attempted squatting. (The tepid is never what works in Art - it has to be white hot.)

I'm less keen on puritanical idealism.

Except on amplification.

... and applause between movements of a Symphony or Concerto? You're as fond of "puritanical idealism" as any of us, Alpie - it's just that (like the rest of us) you describe your own "puritanical idealism" as your "standards". The only difference between us, I think, is that I prioritise the composers' ideas before and above those of the performer; you regard the performers' ideas of "interpretation" as in the service of the composer?

[Pabmusic]

... and applause between movements of a Symphony or Concerto? You're as fond of "puritanical idealism" as any of us, Alpie - it's just that (like the rest of us) you describe your own "puritanical idealism" as your "standards". The only difference between us, I think, is that I prioritise the composers' ideas before and above those of the performer; you regard the performers' ideas of "interpretation" as in the service of the composer?

My own feeling is that the composer's wishes should always be respected. Except when they shouldn't.

In other words, if the composer's wishes can in fact be determined (not so easy in many instances) then that constitutes the default position. But it neednot be adhered to if there is a good case for doing something differently. My favourite example is Beethoven 5, last movement. An exposition repeat is clearly marked, but I feel that to take it diminishes the blaze of C major, with 'new' instruments (contra, piccolo & troms) that's been prepared so well over the throbbing timpani link. To my mind it's effect is reduced by repeating the exposition.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My own feeling is that the composer's wishes should always be respected. Except when they shouldn't.

In other words, if the composer's wishes can in fact be determined (not so easy in many instances) then that constitutes the default position. But it neednot be adhered to if there is a good case for doing something differently. My favourite example is Beethoven 5, last movement. An exposition repeat is clearly marked, but I feel that to take it diminishes the blaze of C major, with 'new' instruments (contra, piccolo & troms) that's been prepared so well over the throbbing timpani link. To my mind it's effect is reduced by repeating the exposition.

Yes - you've mentioned this before, I think. I am exactly the opposite - I feel cheated listening to performances and recordings that omit this Exposition repeat: the "blaze" is enhanced more than twofold with the repeat, whereas the immediate lurch into the Development leaves me feeling ... well ... grumpily unsatisfied, and it takes me some effort to move my concentration away from what I'm missing back onto what the performance is doing. I can't give such a performance my full, enthusiastic applause.

[Richard Barrett]

I am exactly the opposite - I feel cheated listening to performances and recordings that omit this Exposition repeat: the "blaze" is enhanced more than twofold with the repeat, whereas the immediate lurch into the Development leaves me feeling ... well ... grumpily unsatisfied, and it takes me some effort to move my concentration away from what I'm missing back onto what the performance is doing. I can't give such a performance my full, enthusiastic applause.

There's also the question of scale to be addressed when deciding whether to perform repeats (and, as I've no doubt said before, if the composer has written a repeat I feel it's incumbent on performers and listeners to accept it and work out why it's there and assume the composer knows what he/she is doing - otherwise why not make it even more of a "blaze" effect by transposing it to C# major!) (as long as you have "modern" instruments) - if this particular repeat isn't taken, the relative duration of the final peroration is even greater than its already significant proportion of the final movement, and the structural balance of the piece is seriously upset. But of course, if one prefers one's own "arrangement" of a piece, the composer's original is still out there...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There's also the question of scale to be addressed when deciding whether to perform repeats

- I got told off for relying too much on "proportion" when I've mentioned this aspect in the past.

But of course, if one prefers one's own "arrangement" of a piece, the composer's original is still out there...

Yes - this is what I felt when I read about the Pletnev/Chopin in the OP; so long as the arrangement is made clear before yer pays yer money, I can take it or leave it (or take it and put it back). I feel much more - yes, I know it's an emotive word, but I can't think of an alternative - cheated by performances that claim to be "the real thing" but which re-orchestrate and/or make cuts to and/or ignore dynamics, tempi etc clearly marked in the score as part of the composers' own concept of how the work should be presented.

[Pabmusic]

- I got told off for relying too much on "proportion" when I've mentioned this aspect in the past...

I wish you could hear me conduct it - you'd be begging me to shorten it further. :)

I'm actually with you on most repeats; but I have a bee in my bonnet about this one.

[Richard Barrett]

I got told off for relying too much on "proportion" when I've mentioned this aspect in the past.

I think proportion is all-important, and (in pre-modern music certainly) intimately connected with the nature of the material. Bruckner, for example, was famously obsessed with it, to the point of numbering every bar of a manuscript and noting down the number of bars in each structural element, which means that to make cuts as Klemperer did is really (I hesitate to say this, but I think it's an inescapable conclusion) to misunderstand what Bruckner was about. If you don't like the way a composer has written a certain piece, don't perform it!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wish you could here me conduct it - you'd be bgging me to shorten it further. :)

That sounds a little like how I play the Hammerklavier - it takes me as long to play the two opening bars as it does Rosen to play the whole piece. Then it goes downhill from there.

I'm actually with you on most repeats; but I have a bee in my bonnet about this one.

They're funny those "bonnet bees", aren't they? On reflection, I'm rather grateful to them; they're evidence of a decently flawed personality that show that I'm not a Vulcan. (Or Cyberman for fellow aficiondos of the superior TV Sci-Fi series.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think proportion is all-important, and (in pre-modern music certainly) intimately connected with the nature of the material. Bruckner, for example, was famously obsessed with it, to the point of numbering every bar of a manuscript and noting down the number of bars in each structural element, which means that to make cuts as Klemperer did is really (I hesitate to say this, but I think it's an inescapable conclusion) to misunderstand what Bruckner was about. If you don't like the way a composer has written a certain piece, don't perform it!

I should mention that Klemperer isn't fully represented by the studio recordings he made in his final decade or so. There is a recording of the Eighth made with the Cologne orchestra which doesn't involve any cuts, and which takes considerably less time than the cut version. It's a pretty impressive performance all round.

[seabright]

Mention of Klemperer reminds me that he provided a different version of the finale to Mendelssohn's "Scottish" Symphony, as quoted in the Wiki article on the work: "The conductor Otto Klemperer disliked the coda and wrote his own ending in a vein similar to the general character of the movement." I wonder how the purists feel about that?