Yesterday I put up a post which mentioned in passing my great admiration for Jacques Brel. http://blogger-ablog.blogspot.com/2008/06/norman-lebrecht-youtube-french-chanson.html Brel was a singer who had very serious and illuminating things to say which are not expressed in classical music as they reflect a different experience. A person. therefore, very much worth paying attention to. As Brel is not at all sufficiently known in Britain it was therefore with both surprise and pleasure that I read the following today from Alistair Campbell in The Observer.
'Every now and then, one gets through from the saner end of the media market. And so I found myself last week on the Eurostar to Paris with an independent radio producer who had the idea of my making a BBC radio programme on my favourite singer, Jacques Brel. Even among cultured Observer readers I hear some asking: 'Who the hell is Brel?' The question is one of the mysteries of our time - why Belgian Brel, the greatest Francophone performer who ever lived, whose legend has grown since his death 30 years ago, is so little known in Britain.
'I met Brel's eye-twinkling accordionist Jean Corti, who subtly tested my knowledge by playing a number of Brel songs and asking me to name them. I managed most. And I met Jean-Michel Boris, who staged Brel's last-ever live performance at the Olympia in 1967, tears in his eyes as he recalled the emotions of an extraordinary night. I picked up a DVD of the concert at Galeries Lafayette. I urge anyone with an interest in the power of live performance to get it. '
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/29/alistaircampbell
A quick visit to Amazon.fr reveals that the DVD is still available from other suppliers via Amazon so it is ordered.
As both Lebrecht and Campbell have dealt with French post-World War II chanson, and more specifically Brel, in one week does this mean this genre/school is more entering at least some areas of British cultural life? If so it would be a definite step forward.
Saturday 28 June 2008
Obsessional neurotics in music
Freud once remarked that human civilisation owed a great deal to the contributions of obsessional neurotics (a form of neurosis in which internal punishment, 'conscience' for error is extremely severe and manifests iself in the form of being self-deprecatory to an excessive degree, being highly formal, being withdran, unable to accept praise due to its conflict with the person's negative self-image etc). There are numerous studies of obsessional neurosis in Freud's work - his classic case study is The Rat Man. The reason for the high degree of contribution to civilisation by obsessionals is that this excessive internal punishment leads to perfectionism. Obsessional neurosis is not a precondition for perfectionism, however, but it may therefore create it.
Music, as much as any other field, has its own debt to obsessional neurotics. Only examples from performers are taken here.
Anyone who has seen Bruno Monsaingeon's superb Richter: The Enigma will remember the scene in which Richter, one of the greatest pianists of all time, indeed probably one of the greatest interprtative artists of the 20th century, says almost with tears in his eyes 'I don't like myself very much' - innumerable other pieces of evidence, from audiences' appreciation to testimony of those in the film, showing why he deserved to be liked very much indeed. Richter also developed the habit of playing at small halls across Russia (withdrawal) and his preference for Yamaha piano's due to their neutral tone, compared to Steinways, was also symptomatic.
Michelangeli used to criticise people who applauded him on the grounds that applause should be reserved for the composers he was playing - a highly unbalanced concept given that, certainly, his audiences knew Chopin, Beethoven or Debussy deserved applause but they were not available and he deserved it as well. Michelangeli's extremely limited repertoire, confining himself to continuously perfecting a small range of music was also a typical symptom of obsessional neurosis.
But my favourite of all obsessional neurotics in music stories concerns Mravinsky - someone with classic obsessional features including by the end of his career preparing the orchestra meticulously at rehearsal and then leaving someone else to do the performance (a characteristic 'hiding' feature of obsessionals). The orchestra were once awestruck by his rehearsal of Bruckner's 7th symphony and at least one player wondered (not to Mravinsky) how it could be improved on at the performance. Mravinsky however cancelled the performance - on the grounds that it couldn't match the rehearsal!
These characteristics are not as frequently commented on, but are as notable, as the manic-depression of Klemperer. The great contribution of these artists is of course independent of the psychological motivation - and in some cases the great internal suffering it imposed on those who contributed so much to others.
NB Considered above are cases where the degree of 'neurosis' merely affected features of interpretation without imposing itself on the music to a degree which qualitative alters its character. The more well known case of Glenn Gould, with his well documented neurosis, involved distortions which did, in this author's opinion, qualitatively distort the character of the music performed. Michelangeli peforming Chopin is exactly what it says, whereas 'Glenn Gould performs music based on original texts by Bach' might be a better descriptions of his approach - it may interesting but it is not really Bach. Others may disagree of course - and I own a huge number of Glenn Gould recordings.
Music, as much as any other field, has its own debt to obsessional neurotics. Only examples from performers are taken here.
Anyone who has seen Bruno Monsaingeon's superb Richter: The Enigma will remember the scene in which Richter, one of the greatest pianists of all time, indeed probably one of the greatest interprtative artists of the 20th century, says almost with tears in his eyes 'I don't like myself very much' - innumerable other pieces of evidence, from audiences' appreciation to testimony of those in the film, showing why he deserved to be liked very much indeed. Richter also developed the habit of playing at small halls across Russia (withdrawal) and his preference for Yamaha piano's due to their neutral tone, compared to Steinways, was also symptomatic.
Michelangeli used to criticise people who applauded him on the grounds that applause should be reserved for the composers he was playing - a highly unbalanced concept given that, certainly, his audiences knew Chopin, Beethoven or Debussy deserved applause but they were not available and he deserved it as well. Michelangeli's extremely limited repertoire, confining himself to continuously perfecting a small range of music was also a typical symptom of obsessional neurosis.
But my favourite of all obsessional neurotics in music stories concerns Mravinsky - someone with classic obsessional features including by the end of his career preparing the orchestra meticulously at rehearsal and then leaving someone else to do the performance (a characteristic 'hiding' feature of obsessionals). The orchestra were once awestruck by his rehearsal of Bruckner's 7th symphony and at least one player wondered (not to Mravinsky) how it could be improved on at the performance. Mravinsky however cancelled the performance - on the grounds that it couldn't match the rehearsal!
These characteristics are not as frequently commented on, but are as notable, as the manic-depression of Klemperer. The great contribution of these artists is of course independent of the psychological motivation - and in some cases the great internal suffering it imposed on those who contributed so much to others.
NB Considered above are cases where the degree of 'neurosis' merely affected features of interpretation without imposing itself on the music to a degree which qualitative alters its character. The more well known case of Glenn Gould, with his well documented neurosis, involved distortions which did, in this author's opinion, qualitatively distort the character of the music performed. Michelangeli peforming Chopin is exactly what it says, whereas 'Glenn Gould performs music based on original texts by Bach' might be a better descriptions of his approach - it may interesting but it is not really Bach. Others may disagree of course - and I own a huge number of Glenn Gould recordings.
Norman Lebrecht, YouTube, French chanson
Norman Lebrecht has a wrong framework but is usually interesting reading - except when he is trying to explain that framework. But even by Lebrecht's standards an unusually stimulating piece by him has been brought to my attention in Wednesday's Evening Standard.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/article-23499926-details/A+classical+buff%27s+guide+to+YouTube/article.do
Its subject is music and YouTube - an issue well worth considering. But particularly interesting for themes on this blog are his observations on post-World War II French chanson - remarks centring on Brel, Brassens, Piaf and Barbara. Lebrecht writes: 'The French chanson, an insular art that falls midway between Vaughan Williams's Songs of Travel and Radiohead's latest, is a world unto itself... the essential pessimistictristesse of the genre, the sense that we might as well accept the world as it is, for it will never get any better.' Having previously greatly admired Brel, in particular, but only recognising a distinctive 'feel' of this genre without any clear uconceptualistion, an important thought was added by reading Lebrecht. Indeed the sadness frequently underlying the music is striking.
I am absolutely not an expert on French culture so would not make any significant observations except that I have a great liking for Simenon who, at least for me, has some of the same feel - an underlying view of of hidden tragedies, the pursuit of petty purposes, of tragedy by accident, of futility. If accurate such observations obviously invite the question of why such concepts were influential in important parts of post-World War II French language literature and song.
However it may also be that these observations are a result of ignorance and wrong? Contributions by anyone with better knowledge of the issue would be welcome.
But Lebrecht's is definitely an article worth reading and is recommended - and not simply for its observations on YouTube.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-home/article-23499926-details/A+classical+buff%27s+guide+to+YouTube/article.do
Its subject is music and YouTube - an issue well worth considering. But particularly interesting for themes on this blog are his observations on post-World War II French chanson - remarks centring on Brel, Brassens, Piaf and Barbara. Lebrecht writes: 'The French chanson, an insular art that falls midway between Vaughan Williams's Songs of Travel and Radiohead's latest, is a world unto itself... the essential pessimistictristesse of the genre, the sense that we might as well accept the world as it is, for it will never get any better.' Having previously greatly admired Brel, in particular, but only recognising a distinctive 'feel' of this genre without any clear uconceptualistion, an important thought was added by reading Lebrecht. Indeed the sadness frequently underlying the music is striking.
I am absolutely not an expert on French culture so would not make any significant observations except that I have a great liking for Simenon who, at least for me, has some of the same feel - an underlying view of of hidden tragedies, the pursuit of petty purposes, of tragedy by accident, of futility. If accurate such observations obviously invite the question of why such concepts were influential in important parts of post-World War II French language literature and song.
However it may also be that these observations are a result of ignorance and wrong? Contributions by anyone with better knowledge of the issue would be welcome.
But Lebrecht's is definitely an article worth reading and is recommended - and not simply for its observations on YouTube.
Klemperer's 'Pathetique'
There are a number of reasons why Russian interpretations of Russian music tend to be superior to non-Russian. One is the distinctive sound of the orchestra due to the distinctive style of brass and string playing - at least before Pletnev started on his stupid quest to make Russian orchestras sound like West European ones. Also Russians understand their music - Mravinsky's 'through individual suffering to universal human suffering' remains, for example, a touchstone for understanding of Tchaikovsky.
For that reason the number of truly outstanding recordings of Russian music by non-Russians is limited - Furtwangler's 1938 Pathetique is a famous example.
One, however, that I have a predilection for is Klemperer's recording of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. I know it is stylistically not in line with Russian interpretations but, particularly in the last movement, Klemperer's 'objective' style brings out something new. Generally the symphony, and that movement in particular, is interpreted at the level of a person - individual human suffering. Indeed Tchaikovsky's own name 'Pathetique', rather than 'Tragic', does indicate the scale of single human being - suffering/collapse on the scale that movement indicates, involving large numbers of people, would inevitably be tragic rather than 'pathetique'.
Klemperer does not orientate it in that direction. His would be a suitable soundtrack for a film of the battle of Stalingrad - human suffering on a gigantic scale.
It is probably not Tchaikovsky's conception - but it has its own validity and impact.
For that reason the number of truly outstanding recordings of Russian music by non-Russians is limited - Furtwangler's 1938 Pathetique is a famous example.
One, however, that I have a predilection for is Klemperer's recording of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique. I know it is stylistically not in line with Russian interpretations but, particularly in the last movement, Klemperer's 'objective' style brings out something new. Generally the symphony, and that movement in particular, is interpreted at the level of a person - individual human suffering. Indeed Tchaikovsky's own name 'Pathetique', rather than 'Tragic', does indicate the scale of single human being - suffering/collapse on the scale that movement indicates, involving large numbers of people, would inevitably be tragic rather than 'pathetique'.
Klemperer does not orientate it in that direction. His would be a suitable soundtrack for a film of the battle of Stalingrad - human suffering on a gigantic scale.
It is probably not Tchaikovsky's conception - but it has its own validity and impact.
Friday 27 June 2008
Beethoven's Eroica - Toscanini 1939, Klemperer 1955
Both are, of course, extremely famous recordings. I have listened to the Toscanini on the excellent and widely praised transfer of the entire 1939 cycle on Music & Arts - another advantage of this set, incidentally, being the highly informative notes by Christopher Dyment.
The fame of the 1939 recording is fully justified, and not everything lives up to its reputation, but to me it has features which differ somewhat from those sometimes carelessly attributed to Toscanini.
The concept of a 'heroic' symphony, and in this case the name is applied by Beethoven, obviously implies someone considerably away from the average. If we take another famous interpreter of the symphony, Klemperer, the power of his interpretation lies in the remorseless and inevitable character of the music - the 'granite will' to use a hackneyed but appropriate phrase. This is achieved by a minimum of tempo changes and Klemperer's 'vertically equal' tone - that is avoidance of domination by the top line with his characteristic strong emphasis to the bass and woodwind. The result is somewhere between a force of nature and a human being. All Klemperer's readings, with their integration of long line, including careful placing and grading of dynamics throughout the work, have the feeling of inevitability - that once the first notes have sounded the rest follows inevitably.
Toscanini's hero is more human. The tempo fluctuations, contrary to Toscanini's reputation, are much greater in the first movement than Klemperer's - not only in the latter's famous 1955 recording but in any of his other recorded performances. In the quieter passages Toscanini's hero either pauses for breath or thought - the momentum of the music slowed by a deceleration in tempo. This makes the ensuing onslaught the more striking. Toscanini's hero rather than having a 'granite will' has a more human 'indomitable will' - that is, whatever the pauses, in which relaxation occurse in a way it does not in Klemperer, the struggle is resumed. This means the outburst at the centre of the funeral march has a more human character, for a person who was not without a quieter or softer side, than Klemperer's.
Within the framework that Beethoven's hero is clearly a public person, Toscanini's funeral march has slightly more the element of mourning by those who knew the exceptional figure personally whereas Klemperer's is a great formal funeral.
These are, of course, distinctions within the very highest grade of musical interpretation. But the slightly more subjective character of the Toscanini interpretation is not in line with some stereotyped 'conventional wisdoms' regarding him.
Again it should be noted that there is not some 'spirit' separate from the notes as performed. The different impact is traceable to entirely comprehensible differences in the performance.
The fame of the 1939 recording is fully justified, and not everything lives up to its reputation, but to me it has features which differ somewhat from those sometimes carelessly attributed to Toscanini.
The concept of a 'heroic' symphony, and in this case the name is applied by Beethoven, obviously implies someone considerably away from the average. If we take another famous interpreter of the symphony, Klemperer, the power of his interpretation lies in the remorseless and inevitable character of the music - the 'granite will' to use a hackneyed but appropriate phrase. This is achieved by a minimum of tempo changes and Klemperer's 'vertically equal' tone - that is avoidance of domination by the top line with his characteristic strong emphasis to the bass and woodwind. The result is somewhere between a force of nature and a human being. All Klemperer's readings, with their integration of long line, including careful placing and grading of dynamics throughout the work, have the feeling of inevitability - that once the first notes have sounded the rest follows inevitably.
Toscanini's hero is more human. The tempo fluctuations, contrary to Toscanini's reputation, are much greater in the first movement than Klemperer's - not only in the latter's famous 1955 recording but in any of his other recorded performances. In the quieter passages Toscanini's hero either pauses for breath or thought - the momentum of the music slowed by a deceleration in tempo. This makes the ensuing onslaught the more striking. Toscanini's hero rather than having a 'granite will' has a more human 'indomitable will' - that is, whatever the pauses, in which relaxation occurse in a way it does not in Klemperer, the struggle is resumed. This means the outburst at the centre of the funeral march has a more human character, for a person who was not without a quieter or softer side, than Klemperer's.
Within the framework that Beethoven's hero is clearly a public person, Toscanini's funeral march has slightly more the element of mourning by those who knew the exceptional figure personally whereas Klemperer's is a great formal funeral.
These are, of course, distinctions within the very highest grade of musical interpretation. But the slightly more subjective character of the Toscanini interpretation is not in line with some stereotyped 'conventional wisdoms' regarding him.
Again it should be noted that there is not some 'spirit' separate from the notes as performed. The different impact is traceable to entirely comprehensible differences in the performance.
Sunday 22 June 2008
Toscanini, Furtwangler and 'Britishness'
As it is in line with majority opinion it is hardly suprising I rate Toscanini and Furtwangler as the greatest of conductors and would only rank Klemperer and Mravinsky in the same premier league (de Sabata and Carlos Kleiber would possibly enter it but there is too little remaining of their output to be comparable).
I therefore do subscribe to either the 'up with Furtwangler down with Toscanini' or vice versa schools. But in one field Toscanini was absolutely decisively superior - strangely enough it casts light on the attempted political strategy of Gordon Brown and supporters.
The sphere Toscanini was decisively superior in was his political stance. Due to Furtwangler's musical greatness attempts have been made to justify his remaining in Nazi Germany, claiming that he was working for resistance from within or was even a 'hero'. Ths is nonesense. 'Resistance' in Germany via music was an absurd utopia - indeed all the resistance in Nazi Germany, apart from the superb and heroic work done by those who spied for Nazi Germany's enemies, led to nothing - nor was Furtwangler involved in political opposition to the regime. The right stance, in addition to Jewish musicians who were forced to flee, was taken by Erich Kleiber who left the country in protest against the Nazi regime.
As there was no obstacle to Furtwangler leaving, he would merely not have been able to return, Arthur Rubinstein was entirely correct when he said: 'Had Furtwängler been firm in his democratic convictions he would have left Germany'.
Toscanini, after some early slight confusion regarding Mussolini when fascism was a new phenomenon, took a totally clear position. He refused to perform in Nazi Germany, Nazi Austria or fascist Italy. He openly supported the defeat of both his own Italy and Germany in World War II - when Furtwangler's concerts were being broadcast as part an attempt to raise morale among German troops (fortunately scarcely a decisive contribution to the war effort).
What has all this got to do with the attempted political strategy of Gordon Brown and his supporters? They have attempted to make 'Britishness' their political touchstone. But the events referred to above remind us that it is universal human values, not patriotism, that are the highest value. The Germans who took the right choice were those such as Thomas Mann, Erich Kleiber, Marlene Dietrich and others who openly called, and campaigned for, the defeat of their own country in World War II. Those who showed patriotism and directly or indirectly supported the victory of their own country took the wrong choice.
Patriotism in short is not the highest moral ground - universal human values are. The attempt to construct an ideology based on 'Britishness' is wrong for a number of reasons but most decisive of all is that it is not on the highest moral ground. That, among other reasons, is why this attempt to create a 'Britishness' ideology appears intellectually cramped and without adequate purchase.
I therefore do subscribe to either the 'up with Furtwangler down with Toscanini' or vice versa schools. But in one field Toscanini was absolutely decisively superior - strangely enough it casts light on the attempted political strategy of Gordon Brown and supporters.
The sphere Toscanini was decisively superior in was his political stance. Due to Furtwangler's musical greatness attempts have been made to justify his remaining in Nazi Germany, claiming that he was working for resistance from within or was even a 'hero'. Ths is nonesense. 'Resistance' in Germany via music was an absurd utopia - indeed all the resistance in Nazi Germany, apart from the superb and heroic work done by those who spied for Nazi Germany's enemies, led to nothing - nor was Furtwangler involved in political opposition to the regime. The right stance, in addition to Jewish musicians who were forced to flee, was taken by Erich Kleiber who left the country in protest against the Nazi regime.
As there was no obstacle to Furtwangler leaving, he would merely not have been able to return, Arthur Rubinstein was entirely correct when he said: 'Had Furtwängler been firm in his democratic convictions he would have left Germany'.
Toscanini, after some early slight confusion regarding Mussolini when fascism was a new phenomenon, took a totally clear position. He refused to perform in Nazi Germany, Nazi Austria or fascist Italy. He openly supported the defeat of both his own Italy and Germany in World War II - when Furtwangler's concerts were being broadcast as part an attempt to raise morale among German troops (fortunately scarcely a decisive contribution to the war effort).
What has all this got to do with the attempted political strategy of Gordon Brown and his supporters? They have attempted to make 'Britishness' their political touchstone. But the events referred to above remind us that it is universal human values, not patriotism, that are the highest value. The Germans who took the right choice were those such as Thomas Mann, Erich Kleiber, Marlene Dietrich and others who openly called, and campaigned for, the defeat of their own country in World War II. Those who showed patriotism and directly or indirectly supported the victory of their own country took the wrong choice.
Patriotism in short is not the highest moral ground - universal human values are. The attempt to construct an ideology based on 'Britishness' is wrong for a number of reasons but most decisive of all is that it is not on the highest moral ground. That, among other reasons, is why this attempt to create a 'Britishness' ideology appears intellectually cramped and without adequate purchase.
Beethoven's Eroica - Bohm 1961
Bohm is a conductor who poses a number of problems. I knew that he was acquainted with Hitler and found his later 'explanation' that anyone prominent at the time knew Hitler much less than convincing. The following entry from Wikipedia, which I have just turned to, makes it far clearer.
'It is believed that Böhm was an early sympathizer of the Nazi party, although he never became a member. In November 1923 he stopped a rehearsal in the Munich opera house in order, reportedly, to watch Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.[2] In 1930 he is said to have become angry when his wife was accused by Nazi brownshirts of being Jewish during the premiere of Arnold Schoenberg's opera Von heute auf morgen and to have stated that he would "tell Hitler about this".[2] When he was music director in Darmstadt and Hamburg he allegedly complained of "too many Jews" among the musicians he worked with.[2]
'While music director in Dresden he "poured forth rhetoric glorifying the Nazi regime and its cultural aims" according to one commentator.[3]
'A more certain story is that in the wake of the Nazi annexation of Austria he gave the Hitler salute during a concert with the Vienna Philharmonic, ironically violating Nazi rules about places where the greeting was appropriate.[2] After the referendum controlled by the Nazis to justify the annexation, or Anschluss, the conductor allegedly declared that "anyone who does not approve this act of our Führer with a hundred-per-cent YES does not deserve to bear the honourable name of a German!"[2]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bohm
There is no one to one relation between musical ability and politics, and Bohm's 1961 recording of the Eroica is to my mind a fine one, but it is unclear how Bohm appears to have slipped through the de-Nazification net, if this is the case, more easily than Furtwangler who made the mistake of staying in Germany during the Nazi period but who is well known to have appeared to have shown no support, and some small scale resistance, to the Nazi regime.
Musically it is the rhyhmic firmness and strength of Bohm that makes this reading notable.
'It is believed that Böhm was an early sympathizer of the Nazi party, although he never became a member. In November 1923 he stopped a rehearsal in the Munich opera house in order, reportedly, to watch Adolf Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch.[2] In 1930 he is said to have become angry when his wife was accused by Nazi brownshirts of being Jewish during the premiere of Arnold Schoenberg's opera Von heute auf morgen and to have stated that he would "tell Hitler about this".[2] When he was music director in Darmstadt and Hamburg he allegedly complained of "too many Jews" among the musicians he worked with.[2]
'While music director in Dresden he "poured forth rhetoric glorifying the Nazi regime and its cultural aims" according to one commentator.[3]
'A more certain story is that in the wake of the Nazi annexation of Austria he gave the Hitler salute during a concert with the Vienna Philharmonic, ironically violating Nazi rules about places where the greeting was appropriate.[2] After the referendum controlled by the Nazis to justify the annexation, or Anschluss, the conductor allegedly declared that "anyone who does not approve this act of our Führer with a hundred-per-cent YES does not deserve to bear the honourable name of a German!"[2]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Bohm
There is no one to one relation between musical ability and politics, and Bohm's 1961 recording of the Eroica is to my mind a fine one, but it is unclear how Bohm appears to have slipped through the de-Nazification net, if this is the case, more easily than Furtwangler who made the mistake of staying in Germany during the Nazi period but who is well known to have appeared to have shown no support, and some small scale resistance, to the Nazi regime.
Musically it is the rhyhmic firmness and strength of Bohm that makes this reading notable.
Friday 20 June 2008
Don Carlo and War and Peace
One problem with literature is that it does not in general 'do' the direct impact of huge social events or decisions terribly well. Because art is concrete, including therefore dealing with the individual, its centre of gravity has lain more with smaller events and with the personal - and the manifestations of the social through these. Think of the way Shirley is the weakest of Charlotte Bronte's novels for example. The number of works of literature dealing with truly major events is relatively highly limited compared to those which don't. This is a weakness because although life does not not normally consist of the impact of the social or pol tical huge event it does sometimes - and to enormous effect.
There are, of course, exceptions - Shakespeare's histories being obvious ones. But a work of literature/music that successfully deals with the impact, and direct actors, of a major political or social event is relatively rare. Art, to portray the individual and the concrete, and therefore to avoid having cardboard archetypes, must see the specific and to successfully integrate that with the huge in social and political terms is extraordinarily difficult.
This is why, in the end, for me War and Peace is the greatest of all novels - greater even than Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. It deals not only with the domestic and the individual (Peace) but the realistic exploration in the lives of individuals of the huge event of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (War).
Another work of art dealing with a similar scope of the impact of large scale political and social issues is Verdi's Don Carlo. Schiller's historical plays, as frequently remarked, do not quite avoid the danger of two diminensional 'cardboard archetypes' to the degree Shakespeare does - but this of course is making a comparison at a level at which almost nothing can compete. Schiller has been under rated in Britain and the recent mini-Schiller revival in London, with both Don Carlos and two productions of Mary Stuart performing, was highly welcome.
It does not need this blog to inform anyone that Verdi's clothing of Schiller's play Don Carlos, albeit in adapted form, in his music produces one of the greatest operas. It is currently playing at Covent Garden. The story of the 1958 Visconti/Giulin production in producing not only a realistic appreciation of the greatness of Don Carlo but Verdi as a whole is well known - and for those who have not heard it the recording of a performance of this production on the Royal Opera House Heritage Series fully justifies its reputation. The only aim here is to draw attention to the specfic feature of Don Carlo that, as with War and Peace and a few other works, it does show art dealing with the biggest events successfully. The rartity of that success only underlines the magnitude of the achievement.
There are, of course, exceptions - Shakespeare's histories being obvious ones. But a work of literature/music that successfully deals with the impact, and direct actors, of a major political or social event is relatively rare. Art, to portray the individual and the concrete, and therefore to avoid having cardboard archetypes, must see the specific and to successfully integrate that with the huge in social and political terms is extraordinarily difficult.
This is why, in the end, for me War and Peace is the greatest of all novels - greater even than Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. It deals not only with the domestic and the individual (Peace) but the realistic exploration in the lives of individuals of the huge event of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (War).
Another work of art dealing with a similar scope of the impact of large scale political and social issues is Verdi's Don Carlo. Schiller's historical plays, as frequently remarked, do not quite avoid the danger of two diminensional 'cardboard archetypes' to the degree Shakespeare does - but this of course is making a comparison at a level at which almost nothing can compete. Schiller has been under rated in Britain and the recent mini-Schiller revival in London, with both Don Carlos and two productions of Mary Stuart performing, was highly welcome.
It does not need this blog to inform anyone that Verdi's clothing of Schiller's play Don Carlos, albeit in adapted form, in his music produces one of the greatest operas. It is currently playing at Covent Garden. The story of the 1958 Visconti/Giulin production in producing not only a realistic appreciation of the greatness of Don Carlo but Verdi as a whole is well known - and for those who have not heard it the recording of a performance of this production on the Royal Opera House Heritage Series fully justifies its reputation. The only aim here is to draw attention to the specfic feature of Don Carlo that, as with War and Peace and a few other works, it does show art dealing with the biggest events successfully. The rartity of that success only underlines the magnitude of the achievement.
Philsophical reasons for not liking Joan Sutherland and Janet Baker's singing
Just to make viewpoints explicit I consider Maria Callas the greatest singer I have ever heard. Indeed the Russian ballerina Maya Plisetskaya and Callas are the greatest interpretative artists of any type I have ever seen - again to make issues explict the greatest non-musical interpretative artist from my viewpoint is Marlon Brando.
I do not generally listen to Joan Sutherland for reasons that will become clear. However The Gramaphone recommends as the best available performance of Puccini's Turandot the Sutherland/Pavarotti version. As it carried an excerpt on the magazine's accompanying CD I therefore happened to hear Sutherland. The problem which destroy's Sutherland as a singer is the dreadful diction which even her supporters such as Edward Greenfield acknowledge - the inability to understand the words she is singing. Janet Baker, another favourite of Greenfield and the The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, has the same feature as Southerland in a less extreme form.
This is not a small matter and is one of some philosophical importance. Because language is of quite different significance to instrumental notes or, in the visual arts, images. As Hegel noted: 'The forms of thought are... displayed and stored in human language. Into all that becomes something inward for men, an image or conception as such, launguage has penetrated, and everything that he has transformed into language and expresses in it contains a category.' (Science of Logic p31)
Language, uniquely, consists of universals. If the oboe or the violin in a piece of music does not play properly this does not affect thought, or universals. If the word's are not comprehensible this destroys thought - a unique element. It reduces the vocal line to another instrument - and that is not the function of words. These are fundamental reasons for not appreciating Sutherland and Baker's singing.
Great singers - Callas, Dieskau, Fassbender, Ludwig, Schwarzkopf to take a few - have superb diction.
I do not generally listen to Joan Sutherland for reasons that will become clear. However The Gramaphone recommends as the best available performance of Puccini's Turandot the Sutherland/Pavarotti version. As it carried an excerpt on the magazine's accompanying CD I therefore happened to hear Sutherland. The problem which destroy's Sutherland as a singer is the dreadful diction which even her supporters such as Edward Greenfield acknowledge - the inability to understand the words she is singing. Janet Baker, another favourite of Greenfield and the The Penguin Guide to Compact Discs, has the same feature as Southerland in a less extreme form.
This is not a small matter and is one of some philosophical importance. Because language is of quite different significance to instrumental notes or, in the visual arts, images. As Hegel noted: 'The forms of thought are... displayed and stored in human language. Into all that becomes something inward for men, an image or conception as such, launguage has penetrated, and everything that he has transformed into language and expresses in it contains a category.' (Science of Logic p31)
Language, uniquely, consists of universals. If the oboe or the violin in a piece of music does not play properly this does not affect thought, or universals. If the word's are not comprehensible this destroys thought - a unique element. It reduces the vocal line to another instrument - and that is not the function of words. These are fundamental reasons for not appreciating Sutherland and Baker's singing.
Great singers - Callas, Dieskau, Fassbender, Ludwig, Schwarzkopf to take a few - have superb diction.
Why Norrington is wrong on Beethoven, Haydn and Brahms
In an argument supporting the authentic instruments movement Roger Norrington used as a justification for a certain style in Beethoven that of course Beethoven was closer chronologically to Haydn than to Brahms. Unfortunately this is highly misleading as it implicitly believes all time has an equal impact. Haydn is a composer formed prior to the French Revolution. Beethoven is a composer formed during and after the impact of the French Revolution - Brahms is of course a post French Revolution composer. In years Haydn and Beethoven are closer together than Beethoven and Brahms, but in terms of the character of the world in which they lived Beethoven and Brahms are closer together than Haydn and Beethoven. This naturally does not 'justify' any post-Wagnerian style of Beethoven conducting, reasons that have been dealt with in another post http://blogger-ablog.blogspot.com/2008/06/hegel-and-authentic-instruments.html. It however means Norrington's statement is essentially misleading.
Verdi and atheism
In the question posed in the previous post regarding atheist composers one I did not list was Verdi. I am not an expert on Verdi at all - regretably due to lack of time not due to an extremely great interest in his music. I however found the following reference on the net regarding a letter by his wife:
'Elsewhere, Giuseppina wrote: "He is a jewel among honest men; he understands and feels himself every delicate and elevated sentiment. And yet this brigand permits himself to be, I won't say an atheist, but certainly very little of a believer, and that with an obstinacy and calm that make me want to beat him. I exhaust myself in speaking to him about the marvels of the heavens, the earth, the sea, etc. It's a waste of breath! He laughs in my face and freezes me in the midst of my oratorical periods and my divine enthusiasm by saying 'you're all crazy,' and unfortunately he says it with good faith."' http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/the-contributions-of-freethinkers-i.html
This clearly puts Verdi close to atheism.
The aesthetic significance of this issue will be looked at in future posts. However as a search on google for 'atheism in music' currently yields only 113 pages it is clearly an underexplored issue.
'Elsewhere, Giuseppina wrote: "He is a jewel among honest men; he understands and feels himself every delicate and elevated sentiment. And yet this brigand permits himself to be, I won't say an atheist, but certainly very little of a believer, and that with an obstinacy and calm that make me want to beat him. I exhaust myself in speaking to him about the marvels of the heavens, the earth, the sea, etc. It's a waste of breath! He laughs in my face and freezes me in the midst of my oratorical periods and my divine enthusiasm by saying 'you're all crazy,' and unfortunately he says it with good faith."' http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/05/the-contributions-of-freethinkers-i.html
This clearly puts Verdi close to atheism.
The aesthetic significance of this issue will be looked at in future posts. However as a search on google for 'atheism in music' currently yields only 113 pages it is clearly an underexplored issue.
Thursday 19 June 2008
Atheism in music
The most famous musical atheists were Schubert, Brahms and Shostakovich - a number of others had more confused views and, for reasons of pursuing a train of thought, I will award a 'virtual' prize for anyone commenting on this who names another notable atheist composer.
A humiliation of the racists in music
When in the 1890s Dvorak was invited to the US to help found an 'American' school of composition he famously recommended that the most promising source for this was to be found in black American music. The dominant racists of the US music establishment of course immediately buried this proposal.
First in jazz, and later even more spectacularly in the creation of rock and roll from blues, black US music of course became, without comparison, the most influential music genre in the entire world. Justified humiliation of the US racists and a typical illustration of racist stupidity.
First in jazz, and later even more spectacularly in the creation of rock and roll from blues, black US music of course became, without comparison, the most influential music genre in the entire world. Justified humiliation of the US racists and a typical illustration of racist stupidity.
Beethoven's Eroica - Karajan 1962
The Eroica is, highly non-originally, one of the most central pieces of music for me. I have more than seventy recordings.
Karajan, as will be known from other posts here, is not one of my top rated conductors. Beethoven can be both unrestrained and savage - attributes that are clearly linked. Karajan's moulded orchestral textures do not fit this. The first movement in Karajan's 1962 recording of the Eroica therefore strikes me as underpowered.
However, the second movement funeral march, in contrast, strikes me as a fine reading for two reasons - both illustrating that there is no 'spirit' over and apart from the notes actually played but the impression is in the way it is played.
First the somewhat moulded orchestral texture, the lack of savagery, produces a certain, but not excessive, feeling of restraint. This is suitable. A sleeve note to a recording of Mahler 2nd symphony made the intelligent comment that Beethoven in the funeral march in the Eroica was thinking of the mourners (or it might be put as the occassion of the death of a hero), whereas Mahler in the funeral piece starting his 2nd symphony was thinking of the corpse (or it might be put as the fear of death). That Beethoven's funeral march has the feeling of a public or state occassion, or of heroism in the face of death, an element of restraint is not out of place.
The second feature is the way that in the central section of the movement Karajan both gives prominence to the trumpet part but integrates it in the texture - an example of moulding. This gives a 'military' character which is in place in this piece known to be originally associated with Napoleon.
Despite my reservations on Karajan therefore it is a reading of stature of one of the greatest pieces of music - no wonder Toscanini, at one of his last rehersals, performed it so to speak 'for himself' to appreciate the greatness of a work he had conducted his entire life.
Karajan, as will be known from other posts here, is not one of my top rated conductors. Beethoven can be both unrestrained and savage - attributes that are clearly linked. Karajan's moulded orchestral textures do not fit this. The first movement in Karajan's 1962 recording of the Eroica therefore strikes me as underpowered.
However, the second movement funeral march, in contrast, strikes me as a fine reading for two reasons - both illustrating that there is no 'spirit' over and apart from the notes actually played but the impression is in the way it is played.
First the somewhat moulded orchestral texture, the lack of savagery, produces a certain, but not excessive, feeling of restraint. This is suitable. A sleeve note to a recording of Mahler 2nd symphony made the intelligent comment that Beethoven in the funeral march in the Eroica was thinking of the mourners (or it might be put as the occassion of the death of a hero), whereas Mahler in the funeral piece starting his 2nd symphony was thinking of the corpse (or it might be put as the fear of death). That Beethoven's funeral march has the feeling of a public or state occassion, or of heroism in the face of death, an element of restraint is not out of place.
The second feature is the way that in the central section of the movement Karajan both gives prominence to the trumpet part but integrates it in the texture - an example of moulding. This gives a 'military' character which is in place in this piece known to be originally associated with Napoleon.
Despite my reservations on Karajan therefore it is a reading of stature of one of the greatest pieces of music - no wonder Toscanini, at one of his last rehersals, performed it so to speak 'for himself' to appreciate the greatness of a work he had conducted his entire life.
Wednesday 18 June 2008
Dudamel's Mahler 5
The Observer carried an excellent article on the prom by the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2156638,00.html. Inspiring to see 250,000 young people in Venezuela being trained in performing classical music. Conductors range up the highest possible contemporary level - Rattle, Abbado. Performance I bought of Mahler's 5th symphony conducted by Dudamel with the Simon Bolivar Your Orchestra one of the best have ever heard. The impact is because they regard classical music as conveying great ideas and great emotion rather than the anaemic restrained stuff we get from many current UK/US orchestras.
Hegel and the authentic instruments movement
The authentic instruments movement, which has of course been around a long time now, poses some interesting philosophical issues.
Both materialism and Hegel (as with Spinoza) are 'monist' systems. That is there is only one (ontological) level of reality reality and divisions into dualist (mind and spirit - Descartes and 'everyday common sense;, phenomena and noumena - Kant) is rejected. This means there is no 'essence' existing apart from that which actually exists.
This means from an aesthetic point of view concepts of 'the spirt of something' versus 'the letter; of something, or 'the spirit versus the notes' in the case of music, cannot be defend. There is nothing which exists apart from/over and above that which actually exists.
This means a number of interpreters have concepts which correspond to a Hegelian point of view. Celibidache's insistence that the reverberation and accoustic properties of a venue were a significant factor in interpretation was entirely correct from a Hegelian point of view - in altered reality and therefore that which existed.
More generally the authentic instruments movement with the diference in balance of instruments etc achieved the same result. The difference balance in Mozart, or the tempo of Beethoven, significantly altered reality.
But there is, however, another issue. Reality consists of a totality - that is causation within it is determined by all elements. Furthermore not all elements are of equal strength - that is the totality is structured. Merely to use authentic instruments, not taking into account the weight of the elements they bring into play, is therefore not sufficient to ensure the totality is 'authentic' - that is corresponds as closely as possible to the reality created by the composer.
Further issues are therefore posed here which will be looked at in subsequent posts.
Both materialism and Hegel (as with Spinoza) are 'monist' systems. That is there is only one (ontological) level of reality reality and divisions into dualist (mind and spirit - Descartes and 'everyday common sense;, phenomena and noumena - Kant) is rejected. This means there is no 'essence' existing apart from that which actually exists.
This means from an aesthetic point of view concepts of 'the spirt of something' versus 'the letter; of something, or 'the spirit versus the notes' in the case of music, cannot be defend. There is nothing which exists apart from/over and above that which actually exists.
This means a number of interpreters have concepts which correspond to a Hegelian point of view. Celibidache's insistence that the reverberation and accoustic properties of a venue were a significant factor in interpretation was entirely correct from a Hegelian point of view - in altered reality and therefore that which existed.
More generally the authentic instruments movement with the diference in balance of instruments etc achieved the same result. The difference balance in Mozart, or the tempo of Beethoven, significantly altered reality.
But there is, however, another issue. Reality consists of a totality - that is causation within it is determined by all elements. Furthermore not all elements are of equal strength - that is the totality is structured. Merely to use authentic instruments, not taking into account the weight of the elements they bring into play, is therefore not sufficient to ensure the totality is 'authentic' - that is corresponds as closely as possible to the reality created by the composer.
Further issues are therefore posed here which will be looked at in subsequent posts.
An outstanding Verdi Requiem
Found by chance - that is happened to be in the shop and they were playing it, an outstanding previously unissued recording of Verdi's Requiem. Ferenc Fricsay 1952 performance (mislabled 1951 on the cover) on Andromeda. Verdi's Requiem is a piece of which there are such great performances (Toscanini - almost incredible simultaneous control of long line and drama, de Sabata - intense dark drama also creating huge regrets for how much of his career happened to coincide with Mussolini's and therefore deprived us of so many recordings, Giulini on DVD - a better performance even than the famous CD and the sight of Giulini's concentration before the Dies Irae being worth the price alone) that I had stopped buying others.Fricsay really brought out the religious chorus and aria element to the music superbly - different to the incredible drama of Toscanini and de Sabata, more consoling and human, but very very striking.Know Fricsay made a stuidio recording as well so now decided to get that. But it will have to be very good to equal this live one.
Germany and Spinoza
I have loved German poetry from my earliest adult life for reasons which only now have become clear. Goethe, Holderlin and Rilke were the centre of my poetic universe with only Shakespeare among English poets consistently in the same pantheon - and greater than any as a playwright/dramatist. The reason that became clear was many years later when I read Goethe's remark 'I am not a Christian.' This non-Christian, non-religious in the normal sense, view of the world meant an entirely different perspective to the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the English religious outlook. And also one different to the religious sensiblities of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - much as I adore Tolstoy. It fitted, in a different way, with the savage realism of Balzac - my favourite novelist after Tolstoy. Jane Austen's deconstruction of the monetary relations underlying society was also the nearest in an English novelist.
The reason for the liking of the sensibility of German poetry became clearer when I found Goethe's admiration for Spinoza - as can be seen I did not have enough time to do research when younger!
But a further point that arises is that if you take the dominant figures of later 19th century German thought - Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, Freud - they were also not Christian/non-religious. That is, an entire central thread of German cultural thought is outside the Christian, and to some lesser extent, religious framework. This was clearly the sensibility that struck a chord in appreciation of Germany poetry even when the reason for it was not known - a clearer view of the world, looking at reality, not obscured by religious/Christian confusions and mystifications.
PS Naturally there are major Christian/relgious influenced writers in Germany - Kant and Hegel to take only two. But the aChristian tradition in Germany is far greater than in England,
The reason for the liking of the sensibility of German poetry became clearer when I found Goethe's admiration for Spinoza - as can be seen I did not have enough time to do research when younger!
But a further point that arises is that if you take the dominant figures of later 19th century German thought - Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, Freud - they were also not Christian/non-religious. That is, an entire central thread of German cultural thought is outside the Christian, and to some lesser extent, religious framework. This was clearly the sensibility that struck a chord in appreciation of Germany poetry even when the reason for it was not known - a clearer view of the world, looking at reality, not obscured by religious/Christian confusions and mystifications.
PS Naturally there are major Christian/relgious influenced writers in Germany - Kant and Hegel to take only two. But the aChristian tradition in Germany is far greater than in England,
Mitropoulos and Shostakovich
One of the more disgraceful episodes in musical history was the hounding, and subsequent severe downplaying (to put it mildly!) of the role of Dimitris Mitropoulos in the history of the New York Philarmonic because of his homosexuality. One of the positive aspects of the tranformation of views on this in the US (a new peak reached with yesterday being the first day gay marriage was legal in California) is the 'rehabilitation' of Mitropoulos and the issuing of a greatly increased number of his recordings. He is for me one of the greatest of conductors and one of the few artists of whom I would purchase almost anything they chose to perform.As I am currently on a Shostakovich binge can I recommend Mitropoulos's recording of Shostakovich's 5th symphony. Not currently listed on Amazon but it used to be available coupled with a very interesting performance of Shostakovich's 6th symphony conducted by Reiner on Sony. Worth picking up if you see it.
Karajan and Shostakovich's 10th symphony
Karajan is not one of my very favourite conductors - I agree with the common view that he smooths the rough edges from a work and the orchestral sound is too blended. He is at his best, again a common opinion, in late romantic works. His personal past, and philosophy, is a real turn off.However listening to his second, 1981, recording of Shostakovich's 10th symphony this is a work he does have the wave length of - including a savage second movement. Not sure why he gets this particular work but he does.Again to give Karajan his due his fight to get Sabine Meyer to be the first woman to play regularly in the Berlin Philarmonic was highly progressive - and his musical judgement has of course been vindicated by her tremendous subsequent reputation. Clearly a number of contradictions in Karajan - showing again that actuality, all the elements of a situation, cannot be reduced to the overall character of it.
Bernstein and Russian music
I have been listening to Leonard Bernstein conducting Shostakovich - 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies. Bernstein is not my favourite conductor - as with others I find his excessive emphasis on individual points and moments distorts the structure and overall impact of a considerable amount of music. However his Shostakovich is excellent - and his recording of the 5th symphony was admired by the composer. Bernstein is, to my mind, also an excellent conductor of Tchaikovsky. So its seems a new point - Bernstein as a very good conductor of Russian music.
Content, art, music
Music is very frequently categorised by style (rock, classical, blues ) or genre (opera, symphony, instrumental) and people are asked whether they like a particular style (e.g. rock or classical) or genre (opera, ballet).This is superficial and not the most important point. It was Hegel in his Aesthetics who made the relevant distinction – between what may be termed entertainment and art.Science and technology can also be used to produce the trivial, harmless toys, or the extremely important. In the same way art can be used to provide pure entertainment or profound insight: 'it may appear as if fine art were unworthy of scientific consideration; because it is alleged, it is at best a pleasing amusement... it is no doubt that art can be employed as a fleeting pastime, to serve the ends of pleasure and entertainment, to decorate our surroundings, to impart pleasantness to the external conditions of our life, and to emphasise other objects by means of ornament... That art is in the abstract capable of serving other aims, of being a mere pastime, is moreover a relation which it shares with thought... art... only achieves its highest task when it has taken its place in the same sphere with religion and philosophy, and become simply a mode of revealing to consciousness and bringing to utterance... the deepest interests of humanity, and the most comprehensive truths of the mind.'Hegel argues, for example 'It is in works of art that nations have deposited the profoundest intuitions and ideas of their hearts; and fine art is frequently the key... to the understanding of their wisdom and of their religion.'The 'classical' music which is still performed, and it is only a tiny fraction of that which was written, is so not because it is performed on violin or piano but because it expresses something important. But it is very far from encompassing all the profoundly important experiences of humanity. Beethoven or Bach had no experience, for example, of the life of black people under slavery and its aftermath in the US. Therefore blues, which resulted from this, is both profoundly important and has a content which was not expressed in classical music.Much music is, at best, only entertainment not because it is played on particular instruments or with a particular style, but because it expresses nothing important. Beethoven is important because he expresses something and so does Howling Wolf. It is essentially irrelevant that they have totally different styles – although the content does, of course, determine the style, but that is a different issue.
Mozart
Mozart's key forms are opera, piano concerto, and chamber music because his key forms and framework are the individual and by extension the intimate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
