Deryk Barker [[log in to unmask]] wrote:

>Herbie's homogenised style IMO just doesn't stand up to repeated
>listenings, especially when ther are performances like those of
>Mitropolous, T.  Sanderling (although I don't rate this as highly
>as Tony does) and Barbirolli in the catalogue.

Herbie bashing is a red rag for me (the bull), especially since this rag
has so many colours.

It is just that with Karajan that one has to ask oneself what one wants
to have.  I would say that Karajan was a child of his time, as he draw
the "modern" conductory approach to its farest extent.

If you listen to an old recording, from say 1920ies, you will hear lots of
tempolexibility, lots of changes in tempo (there are other differences too,
but I focus on this), and to the modern listener this gives and impression
of clumsiness, and lack of skill and perfection in the orchestra.  And that
seems true to certain extent, as a third rate orchestra plays that way.
But what is wrong is to take everything for bad.  Because it isn't; This
was also a part of early (recordings and before) times of approach.  This
while modern approaches strive to keep the same tempo as long ass possible.
But one can of course conduct in an other way - and so did the old masters,
espcially Mahler.  Now I am not so old so I have heard Mahler conduct, but
there are lots of detailed descriptions on Mahlers conducting - much more
than about the conducting of say Straussen or Edward Elgar - which gives
a good idea about his perfromances.  Naturally Alma Mahler praised
Mengelberg, as he picked up Mahlers way of conducting, and he can stand
as the antidote of the modern perforer.

I admit I have never read Norman LeBrechts book "The Maestro Myth".  But
perhaps this is what he means when saying that most of todays conductors
don't know what they are doing (so I got the point described for me).

To take for example the pizzicato in Beethovens 3rd symphony, 4th movemnt,
bar 12ff; Most conductors would argue this is the theme, and take it too
quickly, with the same pulse throughout.  While it can be imagined that
Beethoven is trying it out meditatively, and then playfully, like if he
is learning to walk; he gets into it gradually.  Thats why the second part
of it should follow in a quicker tempo - like an answer to the seeking
question.

Deryk Barker [[log in to unmask]] continues Re: Horestein

>Well, he tends (unlike many) actually to take notice of what's written in
>the score;

I don't think it is so simple, and to "actually [...] take notice of
what's written in the score", is easilier said than done.  The ambition
is good, but the problem is that (and this goes for many composers, not
just Mahler): mostly the temposign only says, and are intended only to
indicate, the starting tempo of a passage.  Gunnar Bucht, perhaps inspired
by Sibelius detailed "Lemminkaeinen"-Suite, in his 6th symphony (which was
intended to give a historylesson in musics history), notates everything,
every shift in tempo, and virato, and much more, and although the symphony
isn't impressively long, it took over half a year to study in.  So it has
reasons too.

Another problem, and this goes for Mahlers symphonies, is that the printed
editions of the symphonies, and Mahlers originals, contradict each other.
Mahler fluctuated the tempo very much in his own conducting, and I think
that he intended the tempos in his symphonies to be taken more fluctuative
that he notated.  Take for example the second symphony; in the first
printed edition from 1897, which has become standard, there are many
indications suggesting a change in mood, and I think it is unlikely
that these should not contain a tempo change.  The second symphony is a
good example as the mood is changing often as characteristic for Mahler,
but very few metronome marks are actually given.  So says the printed
score that the basic tempo for the first movemnt is 1/4=84-92 (apart
from the opening figure which is notated to 1/4=144).  Mahlers autographe
score, however, provide more tempoindications through metronome markings.
These don't just add to the markings of the prionted score, but can also
contradict them.  For example the opening of the third movemnt starts with
the tempo 3/8=52 and a little later the tempo rises to 3/8=58, and this is
contradicted with the general tempo indication for that movement: "sehr
gemaechlich, nicht eilen" (="very leasurely, do not hurry") etc.

I wonder how it would sound in the Mahlerites ears if I said that I
would be interested to hear how it would sound if one of our famous
HIP-conductors studied in a Mahler symphony and played it.:-)

I was of course joking, but only by half.

Mats Norrman
[log in to unmask]