Thank you so much, Dave. These explorations of yours into how we analyze performances and interpretations are my favorite of all your videos. They are informative, challenging and probing all at the same time. Thank you.
The fun part is the search for your favorite version. During the last weeks I was listening my way through different recordings of the Britten piano concerto. What a splendid work! Most likely I will end up with Richter, Gothoni or Osborne, but I am not sure yet. So there will be weeks to go with Britten and I will love it.
I think one of the biggest interpretive differences I've heard is between Honeck and the new Welser-Most's Tchaikovsky 4 (the latter of which you should definitely review because it's FANTASTIC). I used to think that the only way to conduct Tchaikovsky was through letting the emotion ultimately guide the structure of the music, which is sort of how Honeck worked, but after hearing Cleveland's new recording, I was completely and utterly blown away. Welser-Most has an incredible ability to see the music as a whole and allows it to sing even at tempos that would normally trivialize the music. Once you pass the acquired taste barrier, he essentially reinterprets the symphony to have a more poetic dramaticism that's more cool-headed than the emotionally charged interpretations, but still cohesive and fundamentally works.
I really like your points in this. And the most recent experience I had with this thing is the Honek recording of Dvorak, eighth symphony. At first I liked it, but then the differences seemed mannered. And I really don’t care to listen to it anymore. It didn’t take long for that realization to Dawn on me.just the opposite occurred with Marin Alsop, Baltimore, recording of the new world symphony. When I first put it on, it was like I was hearing the work for the first time ever. And repeated blessings have only increased my initial fondness for the recording. Thanks for the thoughtful discourse.
I think that's probably a fantastic way to figure out what your favorite recording of something is: Which one would you recommend to someone who's never heard the work before? That novel new recording that you like probably won't be it.
One fascinating thing about different interpretations is if a performer suddenly comes up with a particular phrase or nuance - even a few notes - that somehow "hit the spot" and bring an X factor to that moment. The snag then is that I find I'm always looking for that in future performances and they normally don't quite manage it. But it's a touch of magic to remember for ever. In a couple of cases I'm not even sure I've actually heard it played that way and have just imagined it, but it's still special! Maybe it could be a subject for a video - particular "wow" moments. Most will be unknown, but I will mention Artur Rubinstein in the slow movement of the Chopin 2nd Piano Concerto. There is a bronze of him playing the piano in the main street in Lodz, and it's interesting that the score is indeed open at this particular movement.
I don't think any two individuals are going to agree about their preferences when they recognize difference. There are some "different" (often wildly different) interpretations that I cannot stand for their differences and some that I love for their differences. In another realm, I adore the great masterpieces of cinema, the pillars of the art by Bergman and Welles and Kubrick and so on, but at the same time I can sit there and enjoy the hell out of Godzilla or Ed Wood and even find them cinematic in many ways. Some of us like some "bad" performances and the same person may also hate some bad ones. I guess the trick is can we parse that out aesthetically and critically in any persuasive way, but most of us aren't critics and have no obligation to.
As a slightly daft audiophile I must confess I enjoy hearing minute differences between recordings, based on the interpretations of the artists. But Dave's overall point is a good one, I think. We tend to always hunt the details, because that's where the devil is - our brain perceives differences, not the status quo. Well, sometimes Status Quo is a pretty good act
This is an interesting subject because decades after listening to classical music I am still struck by how different interpretations are. It seems to me like there’s a large not mediocre but maybe a middling middle - well done performances that satisfy to some extent but don’t inspire and are often quickly forgotten. Then there are really bad performances and then there are the ones that make you sit up in your seat. I recently heard an earlier Schubert Symphonyconducted by Markevich - I think it was the 4th - Wow- that made me sit up in my seat - not because it was different (it was different) but because it was so darn good. Ditto with Rach 3 by Ormandy I think it was. And a Fricsay Mozart piece…So, the little tweaks here and there fade- it’s the whole conception that makes the difference. It doesn’t have to be my conception but if it hangs together and works - that makes it interesting! It makes wonder who is out there today creating their own unique and compelling sound? Who are r the Szells, Ormandy’s, Markevic’s? Who will Dave, in 50 years (😎) be saying this man or woman built a great body of work? I have no idea…
I think there is a tendency among some to really latch into those differences in an unhealthy way. One commenter on a 45-minute Celi Beethoven symphony 7 insisted that no other conductor has understood the music and only Celi has revealed its true depths. An extreme example of exalting difference to a truly unmerited level of meaning!
If "Celibidache style-different" is interesting only the first time, superficially, and not really interesting, maybe that was the true reason he didn't like to be recorded...
A case which I find fascinating is when the interpretative differences are important, but it is however impossible to make a choice. An example : I am a big fan of Giulio Cesare by Handel. In Jacobs version, the roles of Giulio Cesare and Cornelia are excellent, the others not so much. In Minkowski version, the roles of Cleopatra and Sesto are excellent, the others not so much ! So, it is almost impossible not to own the two versions !
Feeling the same lately, but regarding the two Messiahs I've been listening to the most while trying to get a favorite: Christie's and the more recent by Justin Doyle on Pentatone. Both have really strong points and complement each other in some ways!
I play an instrument that isn't in a symphonic orchestra, and started listening to classical music only three years ago. So when I start listening to a new piece oftentimes I need a LOT of time to get to know it, and once I know it I'm really used to that one recording I've been listening to for weeks - and then it takes me months sometimes to get to like a different recording. That could be the theme for another music chat maybe? About first recordings and how they can leave a big impression? But I guess that's more something for amateur noobs like me and not professional critics haha
I'm not sure, but I think there was a video about "imprint" recordings. I know it's come up in discussion. But I know what you mean. I grew up in the LP era, and it wasn't so easy (without a generous budget and a major local record store) to access multiple versions. Today, you can find a fair amount right here on RUclips, let alone other streaming services. Take advantage of this! If you pick a popular work, you could theoretically listen to it a dozen times without repeating any performance.
This is why we count on Dave who has listened to all existing versions to make a choice which is as close as possible to what the composer wanted before we buy something 😊👍. And as a performer I think it is better NOT to listen to recordings of the piece we are about to learn, because otherwise we are influenced by someone else's interpretation and may have more difficulties to discover the sense of that music by ourselves. We would just tend to play a pale copy of the other performer (even if we listen to many of them, I think it is a bad idea: the composer gave us a score and we can read about the historical side, too).
Celibidache is an interesting example because, as you know, he didn't intend for his performances to be recorded and listened to as recordings, and to be listened to repeatedly. Thus, he would have agreed with much of what you say about his recordings. Gould was, of course the opposite: he intended--as an artist who only made recordings and didn't give live concerts--for his work to be listened to in the form of recordings, and for these recordings to be listened to repeatedly.
Sometimes different is great, it finally sounds right, or at least you are glad the different option exist; sometimes you just ask yourself "why?". Other times you think "this is wrong, it shouldn't be like this", but somehow you still enjoy
I guess look at it a little differently. In my view, interpretive differences are valuable for two reasons. First, there's the simple fact that different people like different things. While, like you, I prefer to clearly hear those winds in the first movement of Beethoven's 5th, some people might very well just enjoy Karajan's approach more. We can argue about which interpretation is better (according to various metrics), but we can't dissuade someone who says "I enjoy this one more" from that opinion. Having a variety of interpretations available means more people are able to find the version they will enjoy better. Second, I find that listening to different interpretations, even in some cases ones I don't enjoy, often helps me better understand a work. I might hear a performance where the conductor brings out a middle voice far too prominently, and even if I don't enjoy that performance, it might lead me to better appreciate that middle voice in recordings where it's more appropriately subtle. Similarly, even if I prefer a relatively fast tempo in a certain piece, I'm often glad that I'm able to hear slower performances as well; I find that listening to different interpretations helps me understand the piece better, and often increases my enjoyment of the interpretation(s) I prefer.
Thanks for this. I like it when you answer questions that I meant to ask but didn't get around to. Would you agree that difference works better when you are trying to please the audience (e.g. Stokowski most of the time) rather than trying to educate it (Norrington)?
I disagree. A great interpreter may create a beautiful new concept over a piece of music, which does not serve the composer's intent but the interpreter's intent. Think of Horowitz interpreting Scarlatti.
One interesting question is also, at least in my opinion, how often can you listen to a 'perfect' recording before it becomes predictable and you lose interest? E.g. I really like the Dvorak 9th recording by Kondrashin with the Wiener Philharmoniker. I listened to it countless times and think it is one of the best. Now I have to listen to others because somehow I lost my interest. This also happened to me with other recordings. I think we need other recordings just to keep our minds from going into automatic mode (and keep the record companies happy 😀 ). I don't know about the god Cancrizans but I think he should at least have 3 versions of everything, just to prevent him from becoming bored...
Very interesting point. But also it depends how often a piece can be played before it loses its edge a bit. The Dvorak 9th is a wonderful work, but it yields up most of its secrets fairly quickly and also gets played an awful lot. Maybe the 7th and 8th withstand repeated listening a bit longer?
Thank you. I understand what you are saying. A difference I enjoy is HvK's Atomic Bells from the Black Hole of Doom in his Symphonie Fantastique, but I prefer other performances.
Me too. Never really understood the adulation Karajan's Fantastique (the later DG recording) gets. To me it's typical Karajan - string dominated smoothness poorly recorded to boot (multi-miked, Philharmonie production). Give me Munch, Bernstein (NYPO or the French National) any day for lasting satisfaction!
I don't really understand why people would need something "different"🤔. Better OK, but different ?? If we want something different, we listen to another piece 😄! In painting, we don't ask a Van Gogh's painting to suddenly look "different", we just look at another painting or at another painter.
"" Collodion "" - Wonderful Word ! - I learn about more than just Music on this channel ! - My vocabulary gets a boost ! :)👶 -- And that Uplifts Discourse - Does it NOT ?
Do you ignore discussion of specific harmonic key and chord changes as fundamental reasons for a work’s uniqueness bc you are unfamiliar with it as a percussionist?
Nothing to do with the video! Along with those who comment before they listen to them, a couple of your own YT purgatory sufferings. They will help alleviate your sins in the next life as you sit arguing with Hanslick...@@DavesClassicalGuide
@@DavesClassicalGuide nothing silly about wanting to hear harmonic analysis. It’s more interesting than discussing the foolishness of liking a recording because it is different. You’re enthusiasm and knowledge are respectable. Just wondering why you never discuss harmonic development and thought it might be related to playing an instrument that has nothing to do with harmony.
Thank you so much, Dave. These explorations of yours into how we analyze performances and interpretations are my favorite of all your videos. They are informative, challenging and probing all at the same time. Thank you.
The fun part is the search for your favorite version. During the last weeks I was listening my way through different recordings of the Britten piano concerto. What a splendid work! Most likely I will end up with Richter, Gothoni or Osborne, but I am not sure yet. So there will be weeks to go with Britten and I will love it.
I think one of the biggest interpretive differences I've heard is between Honeck and the new Welser-Most's Tchaikovsky 4 (the latter of which you should definitely review because it's FANTASTIC). I used to think that the only way to conduct Tchaikovsky was through letting the emotion ultimately guide the structure of the music, which is sort of how Honeck worked, but after hearing Cleveland's new recording, I was completely and utterly blown away. Welser-Most has an incredible ability to see the music as a whole and allows it to sing even at tempos that would normally trivialize the music. Once you pass the acquired taste barrier, he essentially reinterprets the symphony to have a more poetic dramaticism that's more cool-headed than the emotionally charged interpretations, but still cohesive and fundamentally works.
I really like your points in this. And the most recent experience I had with this thing is the Honek recording of Dvorak, eighth symphony. At first I liked it, but then the differences seemed mannered. And I really don’t care to listen to it anymore. It didn’t take long for that realization to Dawn on me.just the opposite occurred with Marin Alsop, Baltimore, recording of the new world symphony. When I first put it on, it was like I was hearing the work for the first time ever. And repeated blessings have only increased my initial fondness for the recording. Thanks for the thoughtful discourse.
I think that's probably a fantastic way to figure out what your favorite recording of something is: Which one would you recommend to someone who's never heard the work before? That novel new recording that you like probably won't be it.
Good point!
One fascinating thing about different interpretations is if a performer suddenly comes up with a particular phrase or nuance - even a few notes - that somehow "hit the spot" and bring an X factor to that moment. The snag then is that I find I'm always looking for that in future performances and they normally don't quite manage it. But it's a touch of magic to remember for ever. In a couple of cases I'm not even sure I've actually heard it played that way and have just imagined it, but it's still special! Maybe it could be a subject for a video - particular "wow" moments. Most will be unknown, but I will mention Artur Rubinstein in the slow movement of the Chopin 2nd Piano Concerto. There is a bronze of him playing the piano in the main street in Lodz, and it's interesting that the score is indeed open at this particular movement.
I don't think any two individuals are going to agree about their preferences when they recognize difference. There are some "different" (often wildly different) interpretations that I cannot stand for their differences and some that I love for their differences. In another realm, I adore the great masterpieces of cinema, the pillars of the art by Bergman and Welles and Kubrick and so on, but at the same time I can sit there and enjoy the hell out of Godzilla or Ed Wood and even find them cinematic in many ways. Some of us like some "bad" performances and the same person may also hate some bad ones. I guess the trick is can we parse that out aesthetically and critically in any persuasive way, but most of us aren't critics and have no obligation to.
As a slightly daft audiophile I must confess I enjoy hearing minute differences between recordings, based on the interpretations of the artists. But Dave's overall point is a good one, I think. We tend to always hunt the details, because that's where the devil is - our brain perceives differences, not the status quo. Well, sometimes Status Quo is a pretty good act
This is an interesting subject because decades after listening to classical music I am still struck by how different interpretations are. It seems to me like there’s a large not mediocre but maybe a middling middle - well done performances that satisfy to some extent but don’t inspire and are often quickly forgotten. Then there are really bad performances and then there are the ones that make you sit up in your seat. I recently heard an earlier Schubert Symphonyconducted by Markevich - I think it was the 4th - Wow- that made me sit up in my seat - not because it was different (it was different) but because it was so darn good. Ditto with Rach 3 by Ormandy I think it was. And a Fricsay Mozart piece…So, the little tweaks here and there fade- it’s the whole conception that makes the difference. It doesn’t have to be my conception but if it hangs together and works - that makes it interesting!
It makes wonder who is out there today creating their own unique and compelling sound? Who are r the Szells, Ormandy’s, Markevic’s? Who will Dave, in 50 years (😎) be saying this man or woman built a great body of work? I have no idea…
Maybe you could make vids 'how different can 2 diff version be different and both still be good as you example ok vs hvk
I think there is a tendency among some to really latch into those differences in an unhealthy way. One commenter on a 45-minute Celi Beethoven symphony 7 insisted that no other conductor has understood the music and only Celi has revealed its true depths. An extreme example of exalting difference to a truly unmerited level of meaning!
If "Celibidache style-different" is interesting only the first time, superficially, and not really interesting, maybe that was the true reason he didn't like to be recorded...
A case which I find fascinating is when the interpretative differences are important, but it is however impossible to make a choice. An example : I am a big fan of Giulio Cesare by Handel. In Jacobs version, the roles of Giulio Cesare and Cornelia are excellent, the others not so much. In Minkowski version, the roles of Cleopatra and Sesto are excellent, the others not so much ! So, it is almost impossible not to own the two versions !
Feeling the same lately, but regarding the two Messiahs I've been listening to the most while trying to get a favorite: Christie's and the more recent by Justin Doyle on Pentatone. Both have really strong points and complement each other in some ways!
I play an instrument that isn't in a symphonic orchestra, and started listening to classical music only three years ago. So when I start listening to a new piece oftentimes I need a LOT of time to get to know it, and once I know it I'm really used to that one recording I've been listening to for weeks - and then it takes me months sometimes to get to like a different recording. That could be the theme for another music chat maybe? About first recordings and how they can leave a big impression? But I guess that's more something for amateur noobs like me and not professional critics haha
I'm not sure, but I think there was a video about "imprint" recordings. I know it's come up in discussion. But I know what you mean. I grew up in the LP era, and it wasn't so easy (without a generous budget and a major local record store) to access multiple versions. Today, you can find a fair amount right here on RUclips, let alone other streaming services. Take advantage of this! If you pick a popular work, you could theoretically listen to it a dozen times without repeating any performance.
This is why we count on Dave who has listened to all existing versions to make a choice which is as close as possible to what the composer wanted before we buy something 😊👍. And as a performer I think it is better NOT to listen to recordings of the piece we are about to learn, because otherwise we are influenced by someone else's interpretation and may have more difficulties to discover the sense of that music by ourselves. We would just tend to play a pale copy of the other performer (even if we listen to many of them, I think it is a bad idea: the composer gave us a score and we can read about the historical side, too).
Nice point. First impressions do make a difference…
I feel the same way. I have to listen to the same disc over and over until it finally clicks, and then nothing else is quite like that disc!!!
Celibidache is an interesting example because, as you know, he didn't intend for his performances to be recorded and listened to as recordings, and to be listened to repeatedly. Thus, he would have agreed with much of what you say about his recordings. Gould was, of course the opposite: he intended--as an artist who only made recordings and didn't give live concerts--for his work to be listened to in the form of recordings, and for these recordings to be listened to repeatedly.
Sometimes different is great, it finally sounds right, or at least you are glad the different option exist; sometimes you just ask yourself "why?". Other times you think "this is wrong, it shouldn't be like this", but somehow you still enjoy
I guess look at it a little differently. In my view, interpretive differences are valuable for two reasons.
First, there's the simple fact that different people like different things. While, like you, I prefer to clearly hear those winds in the first movement of Beethoven's 5th, some people might very well just enjoy Karajan's approach more. We can argue about which interpretation is better (according to various metrics), but we can't dissuade someone who says "I enjoy this one more" from that opinion. Having a variety of interpretations available means more people are able to find the version they will enjoy better.
Second, I find that listening to different interpretations, even in some cases ones I don't enjoy, often helps me better understand a work. I might hear a performance where the conductor brings out a middle voice far too prominently, and even if I don't enjoy that performance, it might lead me to better appreciate that middle voice in recordings where it's more appropriately subtle. Similarly, even if I prefer a relatively fast tempo in a certain piece, I'm often glad that I'm able to hear slower performances as well; I find that listening to different interpretations helps me understand the piece better, and often increases my enjoyment of the interpretation(s) I prefer.
Thanks for this. I like it when you answer questions that I meant to ask but didn't get around to. Would you agree that difference works better when you are trying to please the audience (e.g. Stokowski most of the time) rather than trying to educate it (Norrington)?
I don't think you have characterized either of them accurately.
@@DavesClassicalGuideProbably but how do you account for the difference?
I’d be interested in a companion video of reasons you consider substantive for preferring one version over another.
My whole career is that video.
Well it's like you always say, the bellwether criterion is (or should be) how well does the interpretation serve the composer's intent
I disagree. A great interpreter may create a beautiful new concept over a piece of music, which does not serve the composer's intent but the interpreter's intent. Think of Horowitz interpreting Scarlatti.
The real artist is the composer, no doubt about that.
Disagree, I think that each interpreter brings something new to a piece, and emphasises different points of a composer’s work
One interesting question is also, at least in my opinion, how often can you listen to a 'perfect' recording before it becomes predictable and you lose interest? E.g. I really like the Dvorak 9th recording by Kondrashin with the Wiener Philharmoniker. I listened to it countless times and think it is one of the best. Now I have to listen to others because somehow I lost my interest. This also happened to me with other recordings.
I think we need other recordings just to keep our minds from going into automatic mode (and keep the record companies happy 😀 ). I don't know about the god Cancrizans but I think he should at least have 3 versions of everything, just to prevent him from becoming bored...
Very interesting point. But also it depends how often a piece can be played before it loses its edge a bit. The Dvorak 9th is a wonderful work, but it yields up most of its secrets fairly quickly and also gets played an awful lot. Maybe the 7th and 8th withstand repeated listening a bit longer?
Thank you. I understand what you are saying. A difference I enjoy is HvK's Atomic Bells from the Black Hole of Doom in his Symphonie Fantastique, but I prefer other performances.
Me too. Never really understood the adulation Karajan's Fantastique (the later DG recording) gets. To me it's typical Karajan - string dominated smoothness poorly recorded to boot (multi-miked, Philharmonie production). Give me Munch, Bernstein (NYPO or the French National) any day for lasting satisfaction!
I don't really understand why people would need something "different"🤔. Better OK, but different ?? If we want something different, we listen to another piece 😄! In painting, we don't ask a Van Gogh's painting to suddenly look "different", we just look at another painting or at another painter.
"" Collodion "" - Wonderful Word ! - I learn about more than just Music on this channel ! -
My vocabulary gets a boost ! :)👶 -- And that Uplifts Discourse - Does it NOT ?
You rock... 'Go Dave' & say hi to the cats
Do you ignore discussion of specific harmonic key and chord changes as fundamental reasons for a work’s uniqueness bc you are unfamiliar with it as a percussionist?
Lol, can't wait to hear Dave's response to your rather pretentious and rude comment! Such as you are a reality in the classical world...
Well, I could just delete this silly remark, but I'll just leave it by saying that it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the video.
Nothing to do with the video! Along with those who comment before they listen to them, a couple of your own YT purgatory sufferings. They will help alleviate your sins in the next life as you sit arguing with Hanslick...@@DavesClassicalGuide
@@DavesClassicalGuide nothing silly about wanting to hear harmonic analysis. It’s more interesting than discussing the foolishness of liking a recording because it is different. You’re enthusiasm and knowledge are respectable. Just wondering why you never discuss harmonic development and thought it might be related to playing an instrument that has nothing to do with harmony.
Dunning Kruger is strong here 😅