[Aman]

There's a discussion going on in the Mahler thread at the moment talking about Sir. Rattle's inability to strictly follow the composition as written - "playing for the crowd".

Is there ever a time, in your opinion, where a conductor can credibly take the liberty in not following the score to its more accurate point, or perhaps in simply adding little touches here and there to give it a little bit of his own "personality"? I happen to find this improper, but I don't think so many recordings of famous works would be as heavily praised had there not been an effort on the conductor's part to add little touches of personality at the most opportune moments. Rattle himself seems to be celebrated by critics quite often (particularly citing his Mahler works), but many listeners find his work unfaithful in this regard.

What's your guys' take on this?

 

[Doc Sarvis]

I think many conductors take liberties with the score. In the old days (pre-recorded sound), this was almost expected - it's only been in the last couple of generations that the notion of strict adherence to the composer's intentions has become all-important.

Another point: Bernstein was famous for "liberties." A good example of this is his NYP Mahler 7. There are notes glissando-ing all over the place, radical tempo shifts, etc., that can hardly be said to be "in the score". Comparing it to Bertini, they sound like two different works.

Having said this, I'm guessing that Mahler himself would have probably accepted it as part of the interpretation.

 

[SoundsGood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is there ever a time, in your opinion, where a conductor can credibly take the liberty in not following the score to its more accurate point, or perhaps in simply adding little touches here and there to give it a little bit of his own "personality"? I happen to find this improper, but I don't think so many recordings of famous works would be as heavily praised had there not been an effort on the conductor's part to add little touches of personality at the most opportune moments. Rattle himself seems to be celebrated by critics quite often (particularly citing his Mahler works), but many listeners find his work unfaithful in this regard. What's your guys' take on this?

Being an aspiring conductor myself, I'll put in my two cents.

This is a difficult question to answer. Music is such a subjective area, everyone has a different idea of how things should be done. That being said, I don't think, or wouldn't hope, that a conductor sets out to be unfaithful to a score. They are all trying to bring the music to life and convey what the composer had to say to the audience. Whether or not you agree with their interpretation is of course personal.

Another aspect is that a composer can't write down exactly how they want everything to go. There are just too many variables. This is one main reason why we can have so many different recordings of a piece. There is room for interpretation. And I think most composers realize this too; if music should only be done one way, what's the point?

Now you have to ask yourself what is being unfaithful to the score. Adding a ritard? Adding a crescendo? Not following the metronome marking? Changing dynamics? Making tempo changes where not indicated? The list can be endless. There are lots of things conductors do that is just expected to be done because it's what is musically right, and composers would expect the same. Emphasizing certain chords and notes, highlighting certain passages and climaxes or transitions, etc. The harmony and structure drives much of these decisions.

Am I advocating a free-for-all when conducting? Certainly not. Things need to be done within reason, and need to be backed up musically and with thought. The question should be, does it make sense musically? Sometimes, if you think so, it may not be what the composer wrote exactly. Furtwangler made wonderfully convincing performances of Beethoven. Is this what Beethoven had in mind? Probably not, but for that instance, the music making was supreme.

You talked about the Rattle Mahler discussion. I personally don't like a lot of Rattle's Mahler. I don't think it's coherent and he tends to destroy the structure of the works with his need to micro-manage and play with tempo endlessly. And with as many directions as Mahler put into his scores, he could've put hundreds more. There just isn't one way to perform Mahler. Mahler was generally not as specific about tempos as he was about balances.

Another aspect is that the general music audience has no idea what is in the score. Nor do a lot of them want to know. They just like to listen to the music. And if they walk away from the concert thinking it was just great, well, isn't that the point?

Hopefully I'm making sense and am clear. It's such a complicated issue that it's difficult to concisely discuss.

 

[mbhaub]

I can forgive and accept most things conductors do, within limits. Some things are brilliant. There's one thing I despise and instantly puts the recording on the do-not-buy list: making cuts of any length. There have been some fine performances ruined by that act of vandalism. Then I have my list of the dumbest things conductors have ever done:

1. Add a timpani stroke to the last note of the first movement of Rachmaninoff's 2nd symphony. Jansons, Termirkanov, Ormandy, and many more. Why do they do this? Previn has clearly shown that is isn't needed. He also was the first to demonstrate that the symphony should be played without any cuts.
2. Tchaikovsky 5th, last movement. What possessed George Szell, of all people, to add that crass, out-of-place cymbal crash? And what Stokowski does to that movement is sinful.
3. Prokofieff 5th, 2nd movement. Again, maestro Szell messes with the composers wonderful woodwind writing and adds some trumpet parts.
4. Scheherazade: 3rd movement. Stokowski's addition of xylophone was bad enough, but many conductors also insist on taking a marvelous violin phrase that should be on the g-string up two octaves as if it's more passionate. It's not.
5. Evgeny Svetlanov adding sleigh bell (!!!!) part to Borodin's In the Steppes of Central Asia.
6. Stokowski (RCA) beginning the 2nd movement BEFORE the 1st has even ended. Unbelievable.
7. Rozsdestvensky and others changing the grisly english horn, bassoon tune in the last movement of Tchaikovsky's Manfred by adding four horns to the part.

I'd like to go on, but I have to run. Anyone else have anything to add?

 

[Kees]

Of course he can.
I think any musician is allowed to play (or conduct) music in any way that pleases them. The music was written to be used by performing artists to entertain their audience. Let them do that.
The audience will let them know if they liked it or not....

 

[Aaron622]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course he can. I think any musician is allowed to play (or conduct) music in any way that pleases them. The music was written to be used by performing artists to entertain their audience. Let them do that. The audience will let them know if they liked it or not....

Unfortunately this is the attitude of many (most?) conductors. Most audiences have little (or no) knowledge of what is in the score, so using them as a litmus test for whether or not the performance is accurate is pretty dubious method.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like to go on, but I have to run. Anyone else have anything to add?

One of my biggest pet peeves is when conductors conduct the "chorale" at the end of the last movement of Brahms's 1st at the same tempo as in the beginning (i.e., drastically slower). Check out just the beginning of Barenboim's Beethoven symphonies on Amazon for other such atrocities.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron622 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unfortunately this is the attitude of many (most?) conductors. Most audiences have little (or no) knowledge of what is in the score, so using them as a litmus test for whether or not the performance is accurate is pretty dubious method.

I personally don't ever go to a concert to hear an accurate performance of the score.
I go to enjoy the music. And I think that's what every composer's aim is.

 

[Aaron622]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally don't ever go to a concert to hear an accurate performance of the score. I go to enjoy the music. And I think that's what every composer's aim is.

That's fine, and that's your preference. I'm sure most every composer would want his works performed in front of an audience and for that audience to enjoy his music. However, I don't think that an audience's enjoyment can be used to justify taking extreme liberties with the score.

 

[MatsudaMan]

You guys have to sit back and enjoy the music! I'm a classical musician, and I have to say that I don't sit around and critique conductors on whether or not they are doing exactly what the score says. Not many people do. It's a lot more complicated than that. Oh by the way, what scores are you talking about? Scores can be very inaccurate themselves. It is very often that the score itself is not true to the composer's original intentions (manuscript). For example, Beethoven's original tempo markings were insane and nobody, yes nobody, does them.

Simon Rattle is an amazing musician. Does he do everything strictly on what the score says. No, he's a unique and thoughtful musician who has great ideas and takes musical liberty - So does any 'real' musician for that matter.

You have to be a robot to do just what's written in the score. The composer gave us the notes, rhythm/tempo, dynamics/phrase markings, expressive markings - but the conductor and musicians have to put their own ideas in order for the music to really come alive.

Who ever started this thread is quite full of !@#$.

People like that are what give Classical music a bad name.

 

[bigshot]

Kees is right. There is way too much emphasis today on the PROPER way to conduct a particular piece. This is a fairly recent phenomina. At the turn of the century, conductors regularly edited, rescored and juggled with tempi. A performance was a one time performance. It didn't have to stand for all time as a model of properness.

Picasso said, "Good taste is the enemy of art."

See ya
Steve

 

[Aaron622]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif For example, Beethoven's original tempo markings were insane and nobody, yes nobody, does them.

And it's a shame. What's insane is completely disregarding a simple metronome marking because you feel it is "too fast."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif The composer gave us the notes, rhythm/tempo, dynamics/phrase markings, expressive markings - but the conductor and musicians have to put their own ideas in order for the music to really come alive.

No one's going to disagree with you on this. Why ignore what little we have though?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif People like that are what give Classical music a bad name.

I didn't know classical music had a bad name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You guys have to sit back and enjoy the music!

I had no idea enjoying music and having respect for what the composer wrote are mutually exclusive. If anything, they complement each other.

 

[Uncle Erik]

How is this any different from when a rock band does an acoustic set of their songs or someone covers a standard in their own style? Think how boring recordings would be if they all strove to be the same. I have no problem with conductors or musicians putting some personality into a piece. With music that I know well, I very much enjoy hearing the tweaks and interpretation. It lets me "see" the music from a different perspective.

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You guys have to sit back and enjoy the music! I'm a classical musician, and I have to say that I don't sit around and critique conductors on whether or not they are doing exactly what the score says. Not many people do. It's a lot more complicated than that.

Not really. Either they follow what the score says or they don't. This isn't abstract algebra here. Even if it sounds "right" or it seems artistically correct, alterations are alterations and shouldn't be excused under some aegis of "Oh, well, the composer meant for them to do that." If they did, then they would have said so.

Quote:

Oh by the way, what scores are you talking about? Scores can be very inaccurate themselves. It is very often that the score itself is not true to the composer's original intentions (manuscript). For example, Beethoven's original tempo markings were insane and nobody, yes nobody, does them.

Insane? Never. Beethoven's worst phrase or strangest direction is worth more than the best phrase of three or four composers of whom I can think off-hand. Unpopular? Yes, but that has more to do with the ingrained modern performance style than it does with any musical aspect of his brisk metronome readings.

As to other scores: critical editions get through the nonsense and generally arrive at the right intentions. In any event, saying scores are ambiguous is like saying addition is ambiguous: technically correct at times, but not terribly helpful.

Quote:

Simon Rattle is an amazing musician. Does he do everything strictly on what the score says. No, he's a unique and thoughtful musician who has great ideas and takes musical liberty - So does any 'real' musician for that matter.

Why even have a score? If Sir Simon knows better than Gustav Mahler, a man on the short list for the musical genius of the 20th century, then why not play Sir Simon's own compositions? I don't care a plugged nickel what Simon Rattle, or any composer or musician, for that matter, thinks about Gustav Mahler's score. I want to hear what Mahler thought. Anything else is rubbish, plain and simple.

Quote:

You have to be a robot to do just what's written in the score. The composer gave us the notes, rhythm/tempo, dynamics/phrase markings, expressive markings - but the conductor and musicians have to put their own ideas in order for the music to really come alive.

So the composer gives us everything, and the performers add a certain je ne sais quoi, which somehow makes that everything work? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. PM me if you're interested.

Quote:

Who ever started this thread is quite full of !@#$. People like that are what give Classical music a bad name.

Or, just someone who can cut through the cult of the performer to get to the heart of what the musician wrote.

 

[Aaron622]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif How is this any different from when a rock band does an acoustic set of their songs or someone covers a standard in their own style? Think how boring recordings would be if they all strove to be the same. I have no problem with conductors or musicians putting some personality into a piece. With music that I know well, I very much enjoy hearing the tweaks and interpretation. It lets me "see" the music from a different perspective.

Agreed. Of course every musician is going to bring something different to each piece, and that is a good thing. Maybe I'm reading this thread wrong, but I interrupted it to mean "is it ok for a conductor/musician to deliberately ignore/change what a composer has written in the score?" and to that I would say "no." There is enough subjectivity and ambiguity in music for each musician to say something different without violating the spirit of the music and what the composer has explicitly said.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Who ever started this thread is quite full of !@#$. People like that are what give Classical music a bad name.

Yeesh.

I respected every word you said, every opinion given, until this. My intent in starting this thread was to question a recent trend I've noticed of many conductors taking the liberty to ADD notes or other very significant changes to pieces of music. As a musician, I know (and you must know) that the smallest things can completely alter the image the composer is attempting to create. Where rich imagery and color is normally so important, classical music, to me, doesn't seem to be the proper place to add items, and/or ignore others.

Of course, interpretation is important and necessary when conducting a classical symphony. I certainly understand adding personality to the ranges and instructions the conductor gives, such as in dynamics, tempi, (de)crescendi, and other musical instructions. Although, to me, some conductors seem to take it too far. I think finding a balance (adding personality to the score, but never adding or ignoring any aspect of it, unless doing so is universally accepted such as in Beethoven's case) is essential to an excellent recording of a classical piece.

And no, with all due respect, people like you are giving classical the bad name. The enormous amount of pompousness, rudeness, and snobbery you exhibited in your final two sentences are only coming to heighten the stereotype that all classical musicians/fans are a bunch of old rich pretentious snobs. As one in the industry, it's saddening to me to hear that classical CDs are released in higher number than almost any other genre of music, but accounts for no more than 10% of all CD sales in the United States. Perhaps it's even sadder when I keep on seeing how the musicians themselves may be responsible for this?