Gerardo Constantini wrote:

>Well i will explain my reason: I am against to petulant people,who
>think their performances are a kind of GOD revelations.

Hmmm.  I don't exactly remember ever reading that Celibidache had this line
of thought.

>And i think too,mysticism has it's own place(i am involved in it many
>years),but it is not exactly musical performance, the adequate field in
>wich anybody can put their "mystical"ideas inside.

With this, I most strongly disagree.  I think that music is indeed the
perfect vehicle for mystic expression.  I cannot count the number of times
that I had deep and profound religious and mystic experiences through
listening to music.  If not music, what field would your propose? Speech?
I think not.

>I know many people who were in live performances, and specially in open
>masterclasses of Celibedache,and all of them tell to me the same common
>element of his thinking ...

And this element is....?

>People who don't want to make a recordings for a lot of "philosophic"
>reasons(specially at the time Celibedache made this "innovation") had a
>very easy way to built a "myth" of themselves.Of course,if very few people
>listen to somebody,is very easy to have some people who can speak about a
>legendary performance of the "mysterious" and "strange" artist.

I think that enough people listened to Celi to make a rational decision.
His work has been very widely available on recordings (pirate and
broadcast, yes, but nevertheless available) for anyone to make a sound
jugdement of his abilities.

>On the other side,as an example,Gleen Gould made a lot of public
>performances and recordings,sometimes very contradictory,sometimes
>supreme,but he made people listen to his playing.Of course in his last
>years he just made recordings.  I think the listeners (us) deserved a
>respect from the artists .After all without a listener,an artist is not it.

I don't know that I agree with this either.  You say this on the assumption
that every artist is seeking an audience.  If this is so, how can you
explain the fact that it took until about the 12th century for any composer
to actually sign his or her work.  They composed for the glory of God (in
this case) and did not want their human name to be attached to the work.
I don't think that Hildegard of Bingen for example, composed for fame, nor
did she particularly care for recognition.  She worked for the advancement
of the cause and faith in which she believed.  How many long lost works of
art have been discovered after lying unseen and unheard for centuries.
Does that make the creator of those works any less and artist? No.

>For these reasons and many others, i never listened in my life a
>Celibedache performance, and i never will do it.

You are, in my opinion, missing out on some fabulous music making for the
wrong reasons.  Your logic, in my opinion ranks up there with not using a
computer because you don't like Bill Gates, or not wearing shoes because
you have to kill the cow to get the leather.  A bit extreme if you ask me,
and the moral high ground upon which you stand is pretty shaky.

>A question.  Why he allowed to make some recordings of his performances?
>I think i have an answer, but i am not sure,well.....  Regards.

Many people change their minds over the course of a lifetime.  Likewise,
I don't know of any homan who doesn't want to leave some sort of legacy
behind.  That is why people have children after all.  I think that Celi
must have experienced the same thing.  No one faults Karajan for his
recorded ego, er, legacy.  Why should one fault celibidache who just
waited several years to get started.  I for one am grateful that I hve
some documentation of this superb artist, and for some extraordinary
musical experiences thanks to his artistry.

Kevin Sutton