I always thought the situation was that Furtwangler did not want to lead this concert for Hitler's birthday, but Goebbels demanded it and threatened the conductor, over Furtwangler's claims to have other commitments in Vienna - so Furtwangler drove the music into the ground, to save lives and make a point. Another book on all this is "The Baton And the Jackboot" written by Furtwangler's Jewish music secretary Berta Geissmar who escaped to the UK during the war and became Beecham's secretary.
I hesitate (for once!) to involve myself in this discussion, if only because there are many posters here (and doubtless, numerous other readers/ lurkers who aren't posting) whose musical/ historical knowledge far outstrips mine, and who have stronger opinions (whether musical or moral, whether yea or nae) than I. I will say that I have long been fascinated with this recording, knowing its reputation (whether yea or nae) and its historical significance; and so, from that point of view, I've always regarded it as "important." But I've always felt that it can't be judged on purely musical terms--i.e., as a performance/interpretation and a contender for an all-round "top choice" (as one might judge Karajan 1962 or Karajan 1977 or Schmidt-Isserstedt or Munch or Leinsdorf or Solti or any other readily available stereo LP/CD) as a recording that one would want to listen to again and again... So--and if this is hedging my bets, so be it--I regard this recording both as a necessary purchase AND as an almost-archaeological artifact (or "historical document," as David calls such recordings) that is more significant for its context than as a contender for "best" recording ever of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9. I completely respect those listeners who say that "you can't have it both ways" and who condemn this performance musically and morally. And yet I insist on having it both ways: It's a recording that "must" be heard, but must be heard rarely and with complete and careful awareness of its time and place. ~ John Drexel
Mr. Drexel you captured my feelings exactly. I don’t come back to this recording to hear Beethoven’s ninth-there are certainly far better recordings/performances. But there is something about it, perhaps the historical context, that makes it unique and to my mind fascinating, warts and all. To the commenter who thought Furtwangler’s appeal has faded with the availability of free online performances-I disagree. You’ll still find many volumes of Furtwangler content on amazon, arkiv music, etc. His appeal continues 66 years after his death.
I first heard historic LP of THIS at the library at the National Music Camp at Interlochen when I was a high school camper there. Back then, I only knew Furtwangler from the way he was described in Harold Schonberg's classic book. When I heard this, I drank the Kool Aid, and thought it was the summit of "spritual transcendence" (the only other Ninths I had ever heard were my parents' box set of Toscanini and my own Szell box). Having watched your masterful, and HILARIOUS, overview -- as Alexander De Lage said most articulately, "I was cured." Blessings on your head for your brilliance, Dave!
"And what do you know, my brothers and only friends, it was the 9th, the glorious 9th of Ludwig van. Oh, it was gorgeosity and yummy yum yum. I was cured. As the music came to its climas, I could viddy myself very clear, running and running on like very light and mysterious feet, carving the whole face of the creeching world with my cut throat britvs. I was cured all right."
Thank You Dave, you articulated what I felt when I heard this as a kid - 50 years ago - I have never actually gone back to it since. I appreciate learning about the details of the calamity this thing is. I remember wondering if the bestial tympani sound was the orchestra’s way - or at the very least the tympani players way - of attempting to show fealty to the several true monsters who were in the audience.
The March 1942 Beethoven 9th appeals to many people on an acoustic level because the sound engineering on this recording oversaturates the percussion (especially the tympani) and high winds, creating a very dense sound on the recording that probably doesn't resemble what the performance sounded like live. You either dig it or you don't. I dig it. Don't get me wrong, you're correct on all counts, this was an objectively subpar performance, but I still dig it. I just love the sound on this recording. I don't know why. I just do. Though anyone who recommends the 1942 as a reference recording for someone who's never heard the 9th to familiarize themselves with the work, should be slapped.
Sound quality aside, I find the Nazi Ninth a terrifying performance. Furtwangler may well have stuck around because he liked certain aspects of Nazi cultural policy, but just listen to the end of this symphony. He was no Nazi. Instead of joy, I hear teeth-gritting anger. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. If I hadn’t seen the film of this performance maybe I wouldn’t feel the same. But I don’t know, though. The Bayreuth performance has a similar frenetic coda, but there’s still some celebration and joy there, breathless euphoria, even. The ‘Nazi Ninth’ finishes with a tempest of ugly brute force. I like to think Furtwangler was making a statement.
Completely agree. The first time I listened to this performance I got the feeling Furtwängler unleashes Beethoven's fury against the smug and pompous Nazis sitting in the hall, 'embodying' German culture.
Totally agree Scot - the sheer battery of furious Percussion at the end, and the ridiculous tempo by the end are grotesque. This surely was Furtwangler using Beethoven to make a point
I would tend to think that Furtwängler adapted the whole thing to his audience of the day, in particular a small man with a ridiculous moustache that probably had the same concept of classical music and military/pub one and would enjoy a drunken choir singing Heidi, Heido the same he would the 2nd movement of the 7th. I would not blame it, Furtwängler was in the tigers cage.
He was a Nazi, he watched and said nothing when Many conductors left Germany in 33, he did nothing when Jewish Musicians were thrown out of the Orchestra's all over Germany and Austria, he talk all the acclaim from the Nazi regime, he worked with the Regime he was part of the so called cultural section of the Nazi's , I can tell you that many Musicians after the War had problems to play for him, it was Yehudi Menhuin who made the Man look Human after WW2.
@@robertevans8010 that is simply not true, Furtwängler helped a lot of Jewish musicians in Nazi Germany to escape, and in the post-war trials, some of the survivors even defended Furtwängler. In fact, it was the disdain from some postwar musicians (Toscanini, Horowitz etc.) that prevented Furtwängler from making more music.
I've known your view of Furtwangler's Beethoven for years and am old enough now to not be disturbed by such things! I'm not a trained musician and so tend to go with my emotional reaction to performances above all. The first time I heard the 3/42 9th, close to 30 years ago, remains the most powerful music experience I've had outside of a concert hall. I knew the piece pretty well, but that experience opened up a whole new musical world for me. If I'm not mistaken, you at least have a positive view of the 12/8/52 Eroica, another huge favorite of mine.
I have a positive view of many Furtwangler performances, including the Lucerne 9th, lots of his Brahms, Wagner, and other things besides. It's no secret. I think his Second Symphony is a minor masterpiece, and I've written about it extensively. You always get a reputation from the most scandalous things you say. If I praise something he did, it's not considered newsworthy, but the evidence is certainly out there if anyone cares enough to look.
I myself picked up the LP in Leeds market for 99p back in 1980. I had never heard anything as good as the first movement and third movement and it had me stomping round the room. The first movement is like a river approaching a cataract. Stunning. I shudder to think who was in the audience but I am not sure that is relevant to my emotional reaction.
I should have added I love your willingness to “talk tachlis,” always a favored Yiddish phrase in my family growing up. Still loving Kletzki and the Czech woodwinds in the 9th; thanks again for recommending that beautiful gem of a cycle.
@@helmutbooks transliteration from Yiddish in Hebrew characters to the English or German alphabet is an imperfect art, but I’m happy to recognize your wisdom.
Hi. In my younger years I adored this performance (big furt fan here) but now after more listening experience and matured in age (30 yrs later) I kinda agree with what you’re saying! Thanks for your great channel.
I agree with everything David has said here. But there is one aspect of this performance, which wasn't mentioned, which I find to be remarkable and that is the chorus (but definitely not those hideous soloists). While not the best trained chorus, or even the most musical in interpretation and phrasing, what is conveyed to me is a desperate plea for peace and an end to war. I have 14 recordings of the 9th, and have heard a dozen or more live performances. None of them come close to the emotional impact of this chorus. The closest I've heard was a live performance by the L.A. Phil conducted by Lucas Foss at the Hollywood Bowl many years ago. I don't remember who the chorus was, but they were really fabulous, as was the whole performance.
I agree that from a performance and sonics point of view, it is shit! But as an historical document, it is fascinating. The film footage of the end of the final movement as Nazi propaganda was grotesque: the disfigured servicemen, the swastika flag, Dr. Furtwängler clearly wiping his hand after a handshake with Dr Goebbels. The performance was not so much a transcendental moment as a rage: a rage against the war, a rage against the Nazis criminals: a rage against those that decry and devalue and seek to destroy a German humanist culture that Furtwängler held dear: the culture of Beethoven, Herder, Kant, Schiller, and Goethe.
Furtwängler was an anti-Nazi and made his feelings known to the powers in control. He was due to be arrested in early 1945 by the Gestapo because of his stance. I remember reading about Friedelind Wagner (granddaughter of Richard Wagner), how she witnessed a meeting between Hitler and Furtwängler at her mother's Bayreuth home. Apparently she said - "I remember Hitler turning to Furtwängler and telling him that he would now have to allow himself to be used by the party for propaganda purposes, and I remember that Furtwängler refused categorically. Hitler flew into a fury and told Furtwängler that in that case there would be a concentration camp ready for him. Furtwängler quietly replied: 'In that case, Herr Reichskanzler, at least I will be in very good company.'" Unlike Karajan who joined the Nazi Party twice (apparently to further his music career); Furtwängler never did. It's an interesting story. The question is though - did it affect his conducting? It appears to me that Karajan was great at conveying that German element of German style performance.
I came to this post in a weird way: I was on RUclips looking up the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics and had been struck by the use of the finale to Beethiven's Ninth as part of the soundtrack. This got me to thinking about how other genodical regimes have used the Ninth as an ode to national pride, and so I decided I wanted to re-listen to Furtwängler's Nazi-era Ninth, recorded and filmed in a hall bedecked with swastikas and Goebbels and other Nazi bigwigs in attendance. I notice that some of the comments reflect Furtwaugler's love-hate relationship with the Nazis and claim the overwrought percussion and angry, slashing tempi in the first two movements express his anger at the Nazis for what they had done and were still doing to Germany. Oddly, my favorite recording of any Beethoven symphony is a Ninth by Furtwängler - not this one but the performance that reopened the Bayreuth festival after the war ini 1951. It has everything the Nazi-era performance lacks: a magisterial opening, a demonic Scherzo, a slow movement to die for and a finale that turns messy a couple of times (despite producer Walter Legge's attempts to cover by splicing in sections from Furtwängler's rehearsals) but remember getting to know that performance from the Seraphim LP reissue and being blown away. But I still think I could assemble an ideal Beethoven Ninth by coupling the first and third movements of Furtwängler/Bayreuth, the scherzo from Felix Weingartner's 1935 recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, and the finale from Toscanini's recording. since Toscanini was far better than Furtwängler at the technical end of conducting, especially at keeping complex ensemble passages together.
Thanks for your comments and presentation of this historical recording. I want to add a notice: Furtwängler often wanted to overwhelm emotionally with his interpretation. And there are some moments in this piece, where he can surely use it therefore.. And in this aspect he meets a very important trait of the nazi-ideology. Also Nazi ideology wanted to overwhelm the people, the right, white german people, of cause. So there is an aspect where Furtwängler and the nazis came together at a level below ideology, but which could nevertheless support it. This may explain some roughness and even neglect of appropriate interpretation, which impresses nevertheless people around the world until today. Have a good time, Andreas
Many thanks for all of your reviews, are a great source of information and extremely enjoyable. Missed this one when came out. Just a thought about the percussion in the first movement, not sure if it is just me but I can hear war and destruction. Perhaps it was intentional? Might tie together with lack of refinement and lack of "spirituality"? Could have been intentional but agree should not always look for the "good" in people.
Finally someone willing to tell it like it is. There's another famous recording (not by Furtwängler) that I daren't mention here that everyone I know praises to the skies, and much of its mystique is the direct result of its terrible sonics.
About the timpani, yes, I agree. If I wanted to be polite, I would mention Nielsen's percussion duel or Verdi's Dies Irae, but in fact the impression I got is that the timpanist had got his practice knocking on doors at midnight with the Gestapo. It's absurdly violent. Abendroth, whom you mention with favour, had a tendency to turn Beethoven into a herald of grim fate and heartless nature, but he never went to this extent.
Check out Furtwangler's Bayreuth 1954 performance (NOT Lucerne - Bayreuth one is another performance from two weeks earlier). The timpani are... pretty much the same as in Berlin 1942.
Just two days ago my sister and I were working while binge-listening to all of Beethoven’s symphonies conducted by Furtwängler and during the Ninth, we kept staring at each other at many “chun-ta-ta-esque instances we (non-musicians) perceived.
I'm not sure, bit I don't think Dave is fond of this recording. "It's like an impacted wisdom tooth of music" "The intonation is unlistenable...here...listen." "If a bomb would have fallen on them, we would have had one less ninth." "They're goose stepping...like Nazis." You've outdone yourself this time and I salute you sir.
You dressed up for this occasion! I love Furtwangler, but I never liked this recording that much, or really his interpretation in the 9th and I think the Lucerne performance is far far better than even the Bayreuth. Furtwangler's 9ths are some of the slower 9ths in the discography. So I do want to point out that you say Abendroth is very similar to Furtwangler, but in the 9th Abendroth has a faster conception and only got faster over the years. However he did get recorded in 1951 with the Czech PO that I think has even more dreadful sound quality than Furtwangler's 1942!
He's a fact that I gather you'd find uninteresting. I checked this and this early strike of the timpani at the begginig of the 4th movement happens in most (but not all) Furtwangler's recordings of the Ninth that I'm aware of: 1937 1942 Berlin (March) 1942 Berlin (April) 1943 Stockholm 1951 Vienna 1951 Salzburg 1952 Vienna 1953 Vienna So either all of these performances are botched or this detail actually was a part of Furtwangler's overall conception.
Surely part of the true geeeeenius of Fuertwaengler is to have produced an emotional approximation of reality in much the same way as Impressionist (or, indeed, Expressionist) artists(!) On another front, I can't help feeling that the "not togetherness" pointed out here reminds me of Jesse and Kurt's Vier Letzte...
I wonder, have you heard Furtwangler's Bayreuth 1954 peformance of the Ninth? It's a recording from two weeks earlier (I think) than the Lucerne performance. It shares some qualities with the Berlin 1942 recording, including pretty horrible sound quality (a private recording of a radio broadcast) but also the bombastic timpani. In the "recapitulation" segment of the 1st movement you can hardly hear anything but the timpani, and in the start of the 4th movement again the timpanist strikes a bit prematurely.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yeah, well, I guess the Lucerne one is a time better spent. I just find it interesting that these two recordings are so close to one another in time but so different. Which seems to point that the eccentricities of the 1942 recording (or at least some of them) had nothing to do with war. It just what Furtwangler produced...
The review you've produced here is simply one of the most accomplished examples of independence of mind and courage for objective analysis I've ever seen.
Until you realize he's critiquing the a version recorded in APRIL of the same year that is known as the "nazi 9th" indeed because it was a forced present for hitler birthday confusing this version with the version from march, which is superb.
Your reviews always stoke my curiousity. I did listen to 10 minutes of the recording on You Tube until I could not listen anymore. I had to play the another historical recording, Bernstein's concert after the fall of the wall, to air out the room. My reaction to that pick-up ensemble was largely emotional, but that still worked for me.
regarding his 'technique', there are three important facts that pertain to everyone: 1. no matter whether you have the technique or not, if you conduct mainly one orchestra all the time, the musicians' eyes adjust to the conductor's beat and react. 2. the musicians' anxiousness/ nervousness either from lack of rehearsals( Gergiev) or inability to 'read' the maestro's gestures causes, to a certain degree, a unique energy( sadistic as it might be towards the musicians) and energy is never a bad thing in a classical music piece, and 3. the second a conductor begins prematurely their career ( and operate under huge spotlight), he stops developing conducting-wise. period. other things develop( image, comfort in front of an orchestra/audience, etc) but not the technique, which is much more than just time-beating in symphonic conducting.
I have this recording somewhere and haven't heard it in years. To be honest, I thought that your player got stuck during the adagio for a minute and was about to dig my cd out to see if it was really that slow, but by the time your video was over, I decided that it wasn't worth the trouble. Great review as always!
A long time ago, I was watching a WW II documentary (probably The World at War). There was footage of a conductor exhorting an orchestra, playing the 9th finale. I'm guessing it was footage of the performance David is talking about.
Ha! Your description sounds like how I feel about The Rolling Stones live 1972-78. They feel on the verge of exploding or going off a cliff. But in rock n roll, that’s a plus, and that’s my favorite Stones. 😃
Right on! I just compared the 1942 and 1954 Lucerne performances, and EXACTLY AS YOU SAY, the final bars of the 9th are sloppy mush in the 1942 version but remarkably clear and articulate in the Lucerne version even if both are taken at the same breakneck speeds.
If you allow, there is another more general comment I would like to make. I don't want to waste your time, so just tell me if you think I'm just dirtying the pages and I will stop. The comment is the following. As a fine historian and musicologist, you certainly know that the art of conducting, when it developed from the XIX-th to the XX-th century, it followed two main lines: the Toscanini line and the Mahler line, which eventually became the Nikisch-Furtwängler line. The Toscanini line payed great attention to the precision of the performance, fidelity to the score, etc. The Mahler line was more keen to "unravelling" or "unearthing" what lies behind the score, thus paying less attention to precision and score faithfulness. For these last conductors, technique became "just" a byproduct, or a collateral effect. This is just a historical fact; so you don't expect conductors of the Mahler line to play differently; but this doesn't mean that their achievements are less worthy. Nowadays, the two lines almost merged (they learned from each other) and conductors like Carlos Kleiber, Abbado or Salonen (just to name a few) present elements of both streams. Bets regards, Lucio.
I think this is total nonsense. There are no "lines" as you describe them, and generalize about them. The reality was always far messier and more nuanced than you describe, seriously. Where on earth do we come up with these things? No one was more picky about score details then Mahler. Why do you think he re-orchestrated Beethoven and Schumann in such detail? And Toscanini was far freer and less literal then his reputation would suggest. Furtwängler's performances were far often more similar to each other than Toscanini's were, and that's a demonstrable fact.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Well, this goes back to readings i did in my youth, I wouln't be able to quote this and that after so many years. But you just contradicted yourself, by mentioning Mahler's meddlings with the authentic scores of Beethoven and Schumann: he might have been faithful to HIS score, not the author's. In addition here is a quotation of Mahler: "In a score there is everything except the essential" (Q. Principe, "Mahler" - I'm translating literally from Italian). Anyway, it doesn't matter. After all, I agree with you about the 1942 Beethoven Ninth.
@@luciodemeio1 There is no contradiction at all. Look at what Toscanini did to Tchaikovsku's Manfred, or Debussy's La Mer. Everyone, ultimately, is faithful their own conception of the work. The fact that some conductors play with scoring while others play with tempo is irrelevant. Both are playing. Both claim to be faithful to the spirit of the work.
Furtwangler 3/42 Beethoven's 9th had been my favorite until I recently heard in a movie the Colombian Conductor Andrés Orozco-Estrada and the Vienna Philharmonic. (Not available on RUclips). He es Principal Conductor of Vienna Symphonic and there is a recording of him conducting this symphony witn the Frankfut Radio Symphony Orchestra
Well, I suppose I’m going to get hauled over the coals for this opinion, but here goes. This is one of my very favourite records. I bought it on TAHRA some time in the 90s, after borrowing the Bayreuth 9th from the local library. It quickly became my favourite for the 9th and my disc of Karajan’s 1977 gathered dust thereafter, except for once a year when I’d get that out and give it a spin. The Karajan was better recorded and better played, obviously, but there was something missing which the ‘42 Berlin 9th had, at least for me - some other dimension. And I have to confess I’m still not sure what that is; but the only other recording that has really caught my ear since has been Fricsay. Wand is good of course, but for me there’s no fire in his belly. So, it’s all sadly subjective on my part. But if music is just entertainment, I can honestly say that I’ve had so many hours of joy from this music. I hit me emotionally, I think. I felt, and still feel, a real sense of foreboding in the first movement. Foreboding and terror in the second - release in the trio you highlighted - then the screw tightened again. Serenity, beauty and pure joy in the string sound of the third movement - and just about everything known to mankind in the finale. I have to be honest, I’ve had chills listening to this disc . I love the timpani in the first movement btw, it sounds like they have Ginger Baker wielding the sticks! I’m not into this personality cult thing and don’t have Furtwangler posters or tee shirts or duvet covers. Wouldn’t do the same for Toscanini either, though I really enjoy him in Beethoven - except the Ninth. I like some other Furtwangler Beethoven, especially some of the Eroicas and some of the Fifths. I love his pre-war Wagner excerpts, his Walkure, his Schumann 4, Schubert 9 and Bruckner 8 & 9. Some of his Brahms too. The Mozart operas I heard I didn’t like at all, but I do enjoy his Mozart 40th. I’m not convinced he couldn’t be a ‘time beater’ if he’d wanted to be: it’d be hard to imagine somebody with that degree of musical knowledge not to have a grasp of the downbeat. Hugh Bean, former concertmaster of the Philharmonia said he thought Furtwangler was after something else. Don’t know what that might have been though, but Bean seemed impressed. Anyway, I love it. And it is love, something inside me vibrates in frequency with it. And no, I’m not going to get rid of it. So there! Now you can throw me to the lions.
That's totally understandable as far as I am concerned. As I've said many times, we never really know what's going to "hit" us, or even why. However, you answered a major question for me when you indicated that after you heard this version you retired Karajan '77. I would suggest that you would never have felt the same about this version had you not first learned the work in a decent sounding performance, and your love of F '42 happened, at least to a degree, because you knew what you were hearing, knew what to expect, and could hear it in contrast to that earlier Karajan recording. In other words, it is your knowledge of the work that permits you to overlook the defects in this version. What is missing then comes from within you, not from F's performance, and I find this a fascinating subject to explore--the possibility that what attracts some listeners may be the opportunity to actively participate in recreating the music as it's played because the actual performance doesn't do it adequately. it's "music minus one" for record collectors. If true, I can well imagine the special, deeper kind of satisfaction that this kind of listening might afford some music lovers.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Wow, that's something I'd never even considered. I'd never really thought of it as anything except a primal, emotional response. However, that might not answer when I consider my great love of Fricsay. He's completely different to Wild Bill F. Then, so is Toscanini, so is Klemperer, so is Szell, so is Jochum - and I love certain recordings by each of them. And that kind of brings us around to the joy of listening to music and the all out fun of this site. I've downloaded so much great stuff since watching your videos - and it's been pure joy. For example, I always loved Klemperer's Brahms and his Magic Flute, but didn't know his Bruckner. Now I'm spending hours with his Bruckner - and that's down to you. So, thanks!
@@stuartclarke4683 Thank you for taking my comment seriously. I am kind of fascinated by issues of musical perception and how we experience a performance in real time--how we create a mental image of a work and use it as the basis to chose the performances that affect us most deeply. I take your point about Fricsay, but I would only add that some performances invite a certain KIND of listening and others do not. There's nothing limiting us to one or the other.
Can I suggest this is a very imperfect performance of a great and very well known work (which permits the phenomenon David refers to) that has some *arguably* special 'moments'? Yes, I understand where Stuart is coming from in terms of the feel of the string sound at *certain points* in the Adagio, or the angry sound at other points of the symphony, but the problem for me is that the generally horrid balances (which are responsible for creating the 'demonic' sound that people seem to, for some curious reason, attribute to Furtwangler's artistic direction) and the mistakes, and they ARE mistakes (of which the erroneous horn entry at about 14 and a half minutes or so is particularly embarrassing) spoil it for me. I also dislike the fact that people talk about a certain moment in the recording, seemingly forgetting that the specific point where something happens changes by quite a number of seconds in EVERY single CD/download/stream of this because no one really knows exactly how long the ACTUAL performance on the night was! For example, the Adagio can be anything from about 19 mins 40 secs to 20 mins 40 secs! Above all, I am not on the same page as those who think a sluggish tempo almost automatically equates to "spiritual"!
@@bwpm1467 Hi Matt, I know exactly what you mean. I can't defend myself, but I just love the sound. It gives me chills. Once you get into technical details and social history context, your gut reaction gets lost. Of course there are mistakes - and of course the sound is poor: I mean it's WW2 radio! Unfortunately for me, I don't have the technical musical knowledge to explain my preferences, not really. But even if I did it wouldn't help. All I can say is I've heard Toscanini, Stokowski, Bohm, Karajan, Wand, Barenboim, Abbado, Rattle, Solti, Mackerras and a host of others - but this is the one that does it for me. In most B9s I just switch off, even in the concert hall. That's not deliberate though, especially when I've paid good money. For me, it's a little like my love for Miles Davis. He split notes all over the place, he wasn't the greatest horn player technically - but what he produced by being what he was when he was - was something else. Anyway, why I like what I like in music has always been a bit of a mystery to me. God bless.
I am pleased to agree with you on this one. Furtwangler plus Nazis equals mystic properties which I cannot listen to in the performance. This reminds me of the infamous Dvorak 9th by Kabasta / Munich which was for years attributed to Furtwangler / Berlin. I remember enthusiastic comments which became much more uncommon when the real performers were revealed. It would be interesting to know how many copies were sold when attributed to Furtwangler, and how many since it is known to be Kabasta's. The same performance is not supernatural anymore!
As usual, your review is spot on. I confess I do enjoy occasionally listening to this cataclysmic performance, but my absolute favorite is the Ferenc Fricsay; everything about it puts poor Furtwangler to shame.
My favourite Furtwängler's Ninth is the WPO live recording from 1953. Most of the post-war recordings from 1947 to the end of his life, were of much better quality than those made during WWII. Most of the comments in this video about the performance are in my opinion justified, however, the bad audio quality at least mostly is due to the equipment and technology used in the 1940s. Whether or not the tympani were too loud on the recording due to inferior sound engineering or not, I'm not sure. To me, whether or not Hitler and his chums were in the audience or not does not influence my opinion of a Furtwängler recording. My favourite is the 1953 performance, and if history had been different and Hitler had been present at the 1953 recording, it would still not have influenced my opinion for or against. You could say, as critical listener, I would be what Sweden was in WWII.... NEUTRAL. I simply don't care if Hitler or Goebbels were in the audience, nor Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. I can't be any blunter than that.
I don't care either, musically, but it's a titillating fact and you can't fail to mention it. Also, it is inarguable that for some it does matter, and the circumstances of the performance have contributed much to its mystique. It was only Goebbels, by the way.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yes, to be honest, I only saw Goebbels on the brief film clip of the performance on youtube. I believe Furtwängler used it as evidence, after the war, that he never gave the Hitler-salute to Goebbels in public.
In my opinion, this interpretation is a clear statement against barbarism and against National Socialism. Against everything that characterised Natonaslsozialism. Everyone who has ears must hear this! Any technical details, whether this succeeds or fails, are of completely secondary importance. Furtwängler cannot be considered detached from the social circumstances in which he worked.
Exactly. Beethoven is of secondary importance. Music is of secondary importance. Decent playing and sound are of secondary importance. That, and the fact that the qualities you claim for this performance are completely illusory--but of course you're entitled to believe whatever you like. Still, we can get the same history lesson a million other places, and not at Beethoven's expense. Frankly, I'm tired of this faux-historical "interpretation" in hindsight of an irredeemably bad performance. I think it's very telling that the one person who could have substantiated your claim--Furtwängler himself--never said any such thing about it, and heaven knows he had every opportunity and every reason to do so after the War. The reason he didn't say anything about it is because (a) he had no idea the performance would be released without his authorization and acquire the mythical reputation it has, and (b) he would NEVER have used (or abused) Beethoven in such a squalid way. He was far too idealistic and self-consciously apolitical for that, and (c) if he had any dignity as an artist he would have had the good sense to be embarrassed and humiliated that such a recording even exists.
Very interesting video. In watching this an idea popped in my head. It seems like it would make for VERY interesting viewing if you went head-to-head with other critics (other ClassicsToday critics with differing views, to keep it in the family?) in debate fashion in regards to select recordings. Not to make things too complicated, but it seems like it would be easy to do this via zoom or some other means. I just think it would be fascinating to see you go against someone with an opposite view of some famous recordings, of which this Furtwangler Beethoven 9th surely is one. You could call it "Classicstoday Cage Fights" or something like that. I'm serious about this, it would be fun.
I agree; I already plan to do something with Jed Distler (not in an adversarial way), but your suggestion does sound like fun. Let's see what develops. You know, it's very strange--I have only been doing this for 10 weeks now, but it seems like forever. I've made @250 videos, both to prepare for launch and subsequently. I'm a bit overwhelmed and very gratified with the very enthusiastic and (mostly) positive response, and I've gotten so many good ideas from viewers. I just need some time to digest it all and see what I can put together, but I truly appreciate the excellent idea! Thank you.
i would like hear your opinion on karajans nazi complicity i love the mans art but my god the mindless and sycophantic way his fans have absolved him of any crime is astounding to me. you know far more about him than i do perhaps its not so simple cheers
I think his complicity was morally despicable, but I really don't understand why this is still being discussed. If this means you don't want to listen to him, then don't. He was a great musician, so each person has to decide how much it matters as a purely musical issue. Artists are narcissists. They screw each other and sell themselves like whores routinely. Karajan was no exception. If I refused to listen to the work of any musician who was a bad person there probably wouldn't be very much left. Even the nice ones are often hopelessly vain and self-absorbed. I don't believe for a minute that Karajan subscribed to Nazi ideology. He was an opportunist, just like most of them. So what else is new?
@@DavesClassicalGuide hah, yes well of course this is true, i suppose i am just reacting to the tiresome reliability with which any youtube karajan stuff has (with literal nazis) his fans saying how actually he did nothing wrong and is so wonderful etc let me reiterate i love karajan almost as if i shouldnt worry myself about the opinions of youtube commenters, big shock
This was fascinating. I can now see Furtwangler in the same light as Richard Strauss, whose willingness to go along with the Nazis I have always felt slightly queasy about. The performance itself is what counts, though. Great review.
Strauss is not the same case at all. He had a Jewish daughter-in-law, which compromised his ability to publicly speak out against the nazi policies. He did call Goebbels an idiot a few times though, which is rather fun, isn’t it? In short, Furtwängler ≠ Strauss.
Great content! Could you do a review/critique of the Shostakivich #7? The Bernstein 1989 recording with CSO? Toscanini's North American premiere? A best/worst versions?
I have an idea that David would probably post the Toscanini as worst. Toscanini hated performing it, and removed it from his mind so fast that when he came upon the score years later he could not remember - or believe - that he had performed it. And as for Shostakovich, his opinion of the performance was unusually forthright and undiplomatic.
Golly, a tie! And a book to add to my already-tottering pile of to-be-reads! I think this may exceed the legal delight limit for a Wednesday morning. Seriously, the Ringer book sounds like just my kind of thing ... and I *just* finished an account of German Idealist philosophy 1760-1860, so am primed for such a "what made Germany wack" read.
This will do it. It's a brilliant study and so helpful in understanding why so many German intellectuals either tacitly supported or ignored the Nazi threat.
I was at a concert years ago in a town here in Hungary. Local orchestra played the 9th in the huge basilica. A young girl talked about the work before the concert. She said that this is the greatest masterpiece of all times and things like that. Ordinary things. The concert was horrible partly because that huge (but otherwise beautiful) hall was unsuited for a piece like this. Echo was huge, everything blurred. I was thinking about that what poor people thought who heard that symphony first time. Girl said that this is a huge masterpiece and after that came this blurred mess. Orchestra wasn't good either.
Furtwängler always liked excessively loud timpani at climaxes; it was part of his special "sound," and when it was in balance it was very exciting. Often, however, it was just crude.
I have been a fan of the 9th since Clockwork Orange in 1971 which I believe used the London Symphony recording which was not bad. I listened to many recordings and until now the 1963 recording by H Karajan has been my favourite. Furtwangler certainly has his moments, but the 1942 version recorded from radio broadcast is a chore to listen to. I am glad to know about the further details from David. I also quite enjoyed the one by Gunter Wand.
This video just gets better (and funnier) every time I watch it. Thanks, David! It does seem that many people believe something is amazing artistically just because it sonically sounds like it's echoing back across the galaxy from another time.
I found a video of the recording here on RUclips. In a comment one said that it was the interpretation that Beethoven would have wanted. But, that’s their opinion.
I’ve never understood why the audio is so bad on the old Furtwängler records. The Germans were so technologically advanced in most areas, but I’ve heard Boston Symphony recordings from the ‘30s and even late ‘20s that sound way better.
Dear David, I totally agree with you on this. I was pointed towards this recording by an enthusiastic record shop owner, and really disliked it. I kept to my favourite then and still forty years later ... Klemperer with the Philharmonia on EMI. Best wishes from George
@@DavesClassicalGuide Dear David, I learned the Choral from Klemperer on the original English Columbia four side pressing. I [even as a ten year old] was able to read the conductor's score. I was amazed how Dr Klemperer not only followed but caused the orchestra to make audible, the markings, dynamic, and tempo related, to give almost a perfect rendition of detail, whilst always making the full flow of the overall concept.. I studied this most amazing work as a ten year old [fifty years ago], and decided to buy my own record of it. I bought the French EMI Paris Conservatoire recording on a single LP [cost £1.05] and found many of the faults you describe in in Furtweangler's 1942 performance replicated. Horrible balances, unclear details, if with less unpleasant timpani. The music teacher asked me if he could use my new LP for Music Appreciation lessons [last lesson on Saturday morning in a boarding school] and I said, "No! it is rotten performance. The school library recording with Klemperer was far more revealing" He asked me what I knew about it. I replied, "I have studied the score in intense detail." I was ten. He never spoke to me again for three years. Since then I have found the 1957 live Klemperer performance, and the 1960 or 1961 Klemperer live performances [both pocked by mistakes as is normal enough for unedited live recordings] and find that Klemperer knew what he aiming at, and actually exceeded what was possible in the studio with editing. The flow is important. Some details may go wrong, but to be human is necessarily to fail in detail is normal. Please excuse my long post, but if it were not for music [mostly Bach and Haydn] I would see no reason to wake up again. Best wishes from George
There is a certain kind of roughness and even "badness" that actually can lend music a certain power and depth of feeling that is far more interesting to me than a perfectly in tune and on time presentation. This is not surprising since I come from a vernacular music background where Blind Willie Johnson's voice is one of the supreme expressive instruments. It likely also explains my preference for the rougher sound of period instruments. Nothing you've pointed out about this performance is really arguable IF what's of primary importance is an idea (or sound) of orchestral "rightness" but clearly that wasn't on the top of Furtwangler's list of concerns that night, and as you say, he might not have been able to get it even if it were. I'm suspicious of people throwing the term spiritual around when discussing art, but whatever the secular, atheistic, anti-religious equivalent of that thing is (powerful describes part of it, sentiment perhaps another) this performance evokes that for me in a way none other does. So shoot me. As a fellow member of the tribe, I am chagrined that this piece affects me so deeply considering who was in the audience, but so do the paintings of Emil Nolde (not to be compared to Beethoven as a clarification) who actually lobbied to be the official painter of the Nazi party only to be labeled a degenerate and be forbidden to paint. Why do I give a pass to such a vile MFer? I think because it is necessary for Art to win out over murderous mass hysteria and the destructive impulses of our pitiable species. I've listened to a ton of classical music over many years and especially enjoy comparing performances of a piece played or conducted by different people though interestingly I've not done that with the Ninth. I own about 10 performances of the B Minor mass - Gustave Leonhardt for the win. I am very grateful to you for introducing me to Erich Kkleiber's fabulous 5th which replaces my other faves by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Szell, and Hogwood ( always thought Carlos was dead as a doornail and just wrong sounding) and am now an avid listener/ viewer of your RUclips posts. Great work. Thanks.
Much of the Furtwangler mystique vanished when youtube gave people a chance to hear for free the airchecks that were difficult to obtain years ago. Part of the Furtwangler legend depended on the obstacles that collectors had to overcome in order to find some of his legendary recordings. If you had a certain Bruckner 8th it was the wrong one- only the Toshiba EMI issue from Japan had the correctly pitched version. And if you owned a Brahms 1 you just had to have the Hamburg 1951 only available on some transfer-Tahra?- which was a miracle. And then many moons ago ,DG Japan issued a complete Furtwangler edition that cost a small fortune, but entitled you to bragging rights. I would guess that many collectors just collected this stuff and never listened to it, but owning it conferred superiority on the collector... today Furtwangler is available to any moe that wants to listen to it, and so Furtwangler's reputation has suffered. Never fear though there are squirrel-scholars out there gathering airchecks that aren't on youtube and are only availabe to ..maybe 20 nutty people who who can barely conceal their glee at owning something you don't...
I thought the March 22/24 performance was recorded for the 40th anniversary of the Bruno Kittel Chorus. But, the Nazi birthday performance was from April 19, 42.... or am I mixing them up?
Good review. I'm convinced. Maybe Karajan, rather than Toscanini, was the anti-Furtwängler. Hard to imagine woodwinds and strings poorly blended together in a Karajan recording.
Those cymbals in the coda are an affront to good taste, indeed, but the triangle just before that is equally ludicrous. Almost impressive how the engineers made it sound like a pair of anvils.
I almost purchased this 1942 recording, but I hesitated because knowing that Hitler and Goebbels were in the audience made me uneasy. I don’t want a performance that included those men in the hall to play in my car.
Thank you for this entertaining and well illustrated review...now that you've articulated your standards for assessing historical recordings so clearly, I'd love to hear your feelings about the Van Cliburn Rachmaninov 3 performance at the Tchaikovsky competition (on Testament CD and also available on DVD)... Love your video...keep them coming!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Generally I agree with you about Cliburn, but the warmth and excitement of this performance moves me, technical warts and all...heads and shoulders above his studio stuff...Cheers!
David, Do you think the miserable woodwind intonation in the Adagio might be due to tape stretching? Something related: I have a 9th from the NYPhil conducted by Mehta live also with questionable intonation in the same spot on a early digital recording!
Dave, fascinating video. I enjoyed listening to your thoughts, and I am mostly inclined to agree. You didn't make mention of the horn fluff (the guy comes in too early!) at about 14 and a half minutes or so into the Adagio. Totally horrible.
i have a story, which seemed possibly accurate, but now that i do a bit of research, apparently it is not. at least this part seems to be: it involves chicago's musical fafner for so many years, claudia cassidy. so the story goes that she urged furtwangler NOT to take the cso podium in '47 b/c the state dept would not have given him permission to enter the counrty. well, he did conduct in 47 and beyond and was going to take it as principal conductor in '49, but there was, shall we say a ruckus, amongst some of the big names. he did finally take the podium in either 52 or 53. it surprises me, as chicago has a large jewish population who attend symphony concerts and more to the point give boatloads of money to the symphony. i think it an odd choice at an odd time.
Whatever we may think from the comfort of our present day position of Furtwangler's decision to remain in Germany, the man was no nazi, and he actually helped a lot of jewish musicians escape from the third reich, always refused to take the nazi salute and kept promoting so called "degenerate" composers. His main faults were his political apathy and naivety.
Saw a really good documentary about the Nazis using music as propaganda. It focused on this performance, a cellist who was in Auschwitz and Furtwangler's relationship with the Third Reich. The cellist was part of an all female orchestra. The Nazis had an orchestra in every concentration camp. Requing them to play music by German composers as people were being sent to the gas chamber. Truly horrific. Furtwangler's performace of The 9th, is the culmination of everything that was wrong with the Nazi regime. Agree with Dave. It's time to call a spade a spade.
Furwangler’s Ninth at Bayreuth is probably my favourite Beethoven Ninth recording of all time however! There is a hilarious story I read once of Furtwangler and Hitler having a drunk, bare-knuckled fight in Siegfried Wagner’s house if I remember! Savage!!!
@David Hurwitz Well, I don’t think hilarious was the word I was thinking of, “interesting” more like. Not sure if it was actually true or not, just something I heard, but I do like to imagine the scene anyway! He was no stranger to breaking the draconian rules of the Third Reich though, refusing to give the flat-palmed salute, refusal to conduct the Horst Wessel-Lied and promoting so-called “degenerate” composers (most notably Schoenberg and Hindemith, two of my faves). A very brave man to say the least, and a legend for doing so!
Thanks for your commentary, I listened to it, the more I think about this recording though the more I think how obscene it is, there is no need of nuanced critique here, the ugly truth is that many Jewish musicians, who were once part of this orchestra, were being incinerated while thus recording took place. That is obscene. I research Jewish violinists in early twentieth century btw. You can Google my research. This is not a recording to give attention to. According to Carl Flesch's son, Furtwängler helped his father escape Nazi-occupied Holland, that may have some truth in it. Otherwise, no one should really be paying attention to this recording
Some one (who shall not be named) posted a film of a Furtwangler symphonic performance attended by a gaggle of preening Nazi elite. I asked if he thought there was one remaining Jew in the orchestra? I believe he mentioned the quality of the performance . I immediately withdrew my subscription.
I think F was an inspirational artist capable of very great things. His best recordings confirm that. It's just that most of them do not, and his cult members refuse to see it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks David, I appreciate the time you took to break down the problems of the performance and all your general comments on the circumstances were well put. Hagiography is a problem and a person's life is a mix of dark and light , no less true for F.
It's an interesting performance and a very strange sounding 9th, but that's the best that I can say about it. What it comes down to is that it's not something that I would want to commemorate or memorialize, given the horrible political circumstances and the overly bold and forced interpretation of it by Mr. F. F for failure. Historical, yes. Regardless of whether it's pro Nazi or a defiant anti fascist statement by Furtwangler, it's a horrifying and brutal performance and I don't get its appeal. I don't need to like it and Furtwangler has zero control or a consistent vision as an interpreter here. Thank you for your entertaining and refreshing insights!
Furtwangler said his technique was to "draw the shape of the music in the air with the baton". The Nazi Ninth is an example . He wasn't drawing well that time!
David I love you. This is the second time you are verifying an opinion of mine about a performance. The first was Horenstein conducting Mahler' s third. Now this atrocity! I always thought the 1942 version of Furtwangler's performance was ass. I even had an argument with someone at Academy records who thought I missed the entire point of this one off recording. Now here you devote an entire video explaining in detail why this recording is a dreary experience. Again many thanks.
Tell it! I've been saying this for years, and have often referred to this performance, with disgust, as "the Heilfest." I have always regarded it as an awful performance, in wretched circumstances, and in miserable sound, that has acquired a following far beyond the wafer-thin merits that it might demonstrate. I've seen people describe it as Furtwängler's protest against the Nazi regime: even if so, it's a protest that had absolutely no positive effect, and doubtless encouraged the slimy refuse of the top Nazi brass that they were somehow fulfilling Beethoven's dream of a world where all is enrobed in joy. An effective protest would have had the effect on them of "Gloomy Sunday," or if you prefer to keep things German, 𝘋𝘪𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, causing those despicable turds to go home to find their razors and make the best possible use of them. Sadly, to the detriment of humanity, they did not. As a performance, I have always found it wretched, and you have put your finger on the interpretive and executional failings. And you have, probably unintentionally, echoed what I said on Usenet 12 years ago: "If Allied bombers had somehow managed to sneak in and bomb the hall, totally destroying it, the deaths of Furtwängler and the BPO would have been a regrettable, but tolerable, loss, and the world would be a better place." (Bonus points for your mention of Alois Hába's "The Mother," which I regard as the single ugliest opera ever excreted.)
The notion of that performance as "protest against the regime" is totally stupid, not just because it's completely impossible to prove, but also because it differs in no major way from F's other versions of the Ninth apart from being more miserably played and recorded.
I haven't listened to this much and I blamed the technology and not the players and conductor - if someone told me that the discordant crashing noises were American bombs I probably would have believed them.
The '42 Beethoven isn't a favourite of mine, to be sure. No argument there. I'd just like to query your point about wartime orchestras being unable to be effective - due to depletion of effective musicians etc. There's surely truth in that. Would you agree that there are, though, some extremely good wartime recordings by Furtwangler, especially later in the war - Brahms and Bruckner in particular?
Yes this recording is awful. You cover what's not there so well and appreciate the full sound that should be there. I look forward to you combining your CD reviews with HIFI equipment reviews. Finding the right performance is an essential but insufficient start. Getting that through player, DAC, pre-amp, power amp and speakers (or more easily headphones) is the other half. So what is them minimum HIFI required to sufficiently expose the music you recommend? What HIFI do you use?
The opening of the studio Vltva blows the assumption that he was not into orchestral coordination. As well as the Goetterdammerung 1953 with the very mediocre Rome RAI who manage to pull off a prologue in which there is Mozartean transparency and delicacy which only SKD under Janowski could manage. One of those rare moments in recorded history in which the orchestra and singers seem as one, with lines handed down from one to another beautifully. And the opening chords so soft and luminous, unlike for example Solti's ugly uncoordinated conducting of the VPO (under studio condictions! weh's mir).
Of course. It was a studio recording. It "proves" nothing. Don't get me wrong: F was a great conductor. My point is that his greatness is only fitfully apparent in unauthorized airchecks of performances he doubtless never would have approved for release. I've said that a million times. He turned in great performances, he turned in extremely coherent and well-disciplined performances. This is not one of them, and moreover, it's the F fans who say he wasn't interested in good ensemble, and excuse lapses that, as a serious artist, he never would have tolerated.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I agree that that ninth is a fascinating horror. Personally I don't mind awful sonics but that's truly a timpani concerto. There's one further thing I want to point and that like Toscanini he never treats orchestral figures or fillers as such. Few people catch my meaning, but like Toscanini filling Beethoven's scales (in symph 1 IV for example) with melodic power, the same goes for Furt at his best in the Wagner figures or fillers. I have no idea how he does it but all notes are played at their full value and rounded pitch. Very few artists in my experience share that quality (Callas does, Rubinstein does).
@@DavesClassicalGuide yes it is and i think it helps to create the Stimmung feeling - that the performer sees the final bar from the very beginning. Another rare quality for singers of the 19th century repertoire from the onslaught of the verismo style (roughly the 1920s) is the inablity to color the tone according to the harmony and tension underneath, it is one of my OCDs. Notice hoe Eileen Farrell or Callas or Varnay or Lipovsek or Anita Cerquetti always color the tone according to whether its a passing note or part of the consonant notes, and the way they listen to the orchestra and model their phrasing and articulation to what's going on underneath or around - clarinets oboes etc. I think Ill sometime soon place some kind of an online talk about this on my channel. The best example is Farrells Oberon aria with Schippers, one of the best vocal records I have come across.
Your commentary is outstanding. It is true that there is always somewhere in the world that people are suffering while an audience somewhere else is enraptured. That doesn’t mean the audience is wearing blinders. In the case of this performance, Millions of minorities were being put into ovens by the honored guests before whom Furtwangler was performing while he was wielding his baton. I hadn’t known he opportunistically catered to the Third Reich.
Dave, this is easily the best, most thought-provoking of your videos - bravo. Spare no Sacred Cow. I have not listened to this B9 properly for many a year so it is now firmly on the playlist. Two comments if I may. Furtwangler already had the plum-job by the time Hitler became Chancellor in 1933; he had relinquished Leipzig in the late Twenties and he was already hardwired into the Vienna Phil. That being said, he was certainly protective of his turf, hence his antics when Karajan burst on the scene. Second, I am not 100% sure that Hitler was in the audience for this '42 Concert - Goebbels yes, Hitler, I am not so sure. I stand to be corrected. Best wishes, B
(1) Hitler was not in the audience. (2) After his defense of Hindemith in 1934 Furtwangler was stripped of all of his positions and only was permitted to return to public life after he had capitulated to the demands of the regime. He rationalized his subsequent craven behavior as a necessity to "save" German musical culture, but of course he was just as career-driven as he was idealistic. That story is well known (and I wrote a Masters thesis about it: "Der Fall Hindemith").
@@DavesClassicalGuide Dave, the debate about Furtwangler and his moral standing will continue until kingdom come. There can be no doubt that he added to the cultural prestige of the Third Reich; that's to his everlasting detriment. Each human being has an infinite value. Even if he only saved one human being from the abyss - and the testimony at hand is that he saved several - what does that say of his decision to remain? I don't know, I really don't. A higher power can sort it out, not me.
@@bernardohanlon3498 I think it's incumbent upon us to try to see these issues with clarity and not simply throw up our hands. Of course there are arguments for both sides, but the fact that he did some good does not absolve him of the bad, and neither has anything to do with how I judge him musically, which is on a case by case basis, one performance at a time. In any case, I have no problem sorting it out because I AM a higher power. Thanks for watching. ;-)
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sometimes clarity is in short supply and one has to live with moral ambiguity. Now, your comment on this endeavour being a Concerto for Timpani was very acute and funny - well done. And it's true enough too, particularly in terms of older remasterings in circulation. That said, I am astounded by the difference that Pristine has made to this endeavour (I listened to it last night). Dave, I presume you are similarly dismissive of WF and the BP in Brahms' 4th from December 1943? To my antipodean ears, it is the greatest performance in existence. Best wishes, B
@@DavesClassicalGuide I agree. He supposedly captured Bruckner’s introspective, prayerful soul in the Adagios, and so on. I found much of his interpretations disjointed and rather heavy handed in the Scherzos and Finales. You’ve really enlightened me on how Bruckner composed. Although I’ve loved Bruckner for decades now, I still wondered why he’d wind things down, ending in a full stop at times, then suddenly all hell breaks loose, and so on. I understand it better now, thanks to you.
I agree with all the facts of course but your opinions.. not so much. I think the German at this time, being Nazi occupied was a huge distraction for them, mind in the wrong place. I still think the German spirit and heart was still very whole regardless of the propaganda and all nasty violence their country encouraged. That being said, this is another great performance of the same incredible composer. I think regardless of ideas, if the heart and spirit is human then Beethoven will sound just the way he was meant to.
I've listened to the 1951 Bayreuth Festival performance so many times I seem to dislike any other recording of the 9th. I'll have to listen to the 1942 performance. Once.
The 1951 Bayreuth isn't that great tbh. If you're Furtwangler's fan it's a fine performance, but it's neither a memorable oddity as the March 1942 version or a genius musical accomplishment as the Lucerne 1954 recording.
But make sure to listen to actual march recording and NOT the nazi 9th that is from april (its called this way as it was arranged as birthday present for hitler). The guy here is talking about the nazi 9th, which is historically interessting, but the actual superb interpretation is from march.
I was warned away from this recording (by you and by others) and, judging from the sound clip you used, it's a darned good thing I was warned! I also remember being burned by someone who insisted that one of the "old time" conductors (it might have even been Furtwangler, but I'm not sure) did the only Bruckner worth hearing. So I bought the recording and it sounded like it was recorded on an old cassette player from under the balcony seat. It soured me to "historical recordings" for quite a while. By the way, I confess that I love it when a critic rips loose on something that deserves it ("I hated this move, I hated hated hated hated hated it! Hated it!" to give one prominent example). Thanks for the informative and enjoyable warning!
Not a comment, a question: could placement of microphones caused the apparent dominance of the timpani.? You're right, it's a racket. Tempo shifting? I associate that with Furtwangler. EG the transition between the station and the allergy in his recording of the 4th, a recording that I love.
Sure, microphone placement had something to do with it, plus room acoustics, plus insensitive playing and conducting--the tempo shifting doesn't bother me at all. As you say, that's F, and it's often very exciting.
Actually, I’ve never heard this recording...for whatever reason. After your review, I still have no desire to hear it. Don’t want it. Don’t need it. I have so many great 9ths from which to choose.
I'll have to come back later with some popcorn for the comment section. You really kicked the anthill this time Dave! I love it.
That's what anthills are for!
I always thought the situation was that Furtwangler did not want to lead this concert for Hitler's birthday, but Goebbels demanded it and threatened the conductor, over Furtwangler's claims to have other commitments in Vienna - so Furtwangler drove the music into the ground, to save lives and make a point. Another book on all this is "The Baton And the Jackboot" written by Furtwangler's Jewish music secretary Berta Geissmar who escaped to the UK during the war and became Beecham's secretary.
I hesitate (for once!) to involve myself in this discussion, if only because there are many posters here (and doubtless, numerous other readers/ lurkers who aren't posting) whose musical/ historical knowledge far outstrips mine, and who have stronger opinions (whether musical or moral, whether yea or nae) than I. I will say that I have long been fascinated with this recording, knowing its reputation (whether yea or nae) and its historical significance; and so, from that point of view, I've always regarded it as "important." But I've always felt that it can't be judged on purely musical terms--i.e., as a performance/interpretation and a contender for an all-round "top choice" (as one might judge Karajan 1962 or Karajan 1977 or Schmidt-Isserstedt or Munch or Leinsdorf or Solti or any other readily available stereo LP/CD) as a recording that one would want to listen to again and again...
So--and if this is hedging my bets, so be it--I regard this recording both as a necessary purchase AND as an almost-archaeological artifact (or "historical document," as David calls such recordings) that is more significant for its context than as a contender for "best" recording ever of Beethoven's Symphony No. 9.
I completely respect those listeners who say that "you can't have it both ways" and who condemn this performance musically and morally. And yet I insist on having it both ways: It's a recording that "must" be heard, but must be heard rarely and with complete and careful awareness of its time and place.
~ John Drexel
Mr. Drexel you captured my feelings exactly. I don’t come back to this recording to hear Beethoven’s ninth-there are certainly far better recordings/performances. But there is something about it, perhaps the historical context, that makes it unique and to my mind fascinating, warts and all. To the commenter who thought Furtwangler’s appeal has faded with the availability of free online performances-I disagree. You’ll still find many volumes of Furtwangler content on amazon, arkiv music, etc. His appeal continues 66 years after his death.
I agree.
I first heard historic LP of THIS at the library at the National Music Camp at Interlochen when I was a high school camper there. Back then, I only knew Furtwangler from the way he was described in Harold Schonberg's classic book. When I heard this, I drank the Kool Aid, and thought it was the summit of "spritual transcendence" (the only other Ninths I had ever heard were my parents' box set of Toscanini and my own Szell box). Having watched your masterful, and HILARIOUS, overview -- as Alexander De Lage said most articulately, "I was cured." Blessings on your head for your brilliance, Dave!
"And what do you know, my brothers and only
friends, it was the 9th, the glorious 9th
of Ludwig van. Oh, it was gorgeosity and
yummy yum yum. I was cured.
As the music came to its climas, I could
viddy myself very clear, running and
running on like very light and mysterious
feet, carving the whole face of the
creeching world with my cut throat britvs.
I was cured all right."
Thank You Dave, you articulated what I felt when I heard this as a kid - 50 years ago - I have never actually gone back to it since. I appreciate learning about the details of the calamity this thing is. I remember wondering if the bestial tympani sound was the orchestra’s way - or at the very least the tympani players way - of attempting to show fealty to the several true monsters who were in the audience.
The March 1942 Beethoven 9th appeals to many people on an acoustic level because the sound engineering on this recording oversaturates the percussion (especially the tympani) and high winds, creating a very dense sound on the recording that probably doesn't resemble what the performance sounded like live. You either dig it or you don't. I dig it. Don't get me wrong, you're correct on all counts, this was an objectively subpar performance, but I still dig it. I just love the sound on this recording. I don't know why. I just do.
Though anyone who recommends the 1942 as a reference recording for someone who's never heard the 9th to familiarize themselves with the work, should be slapped.
That's entirely fair and reasonable. Thank you for being a voice of sanity.
Sound quality aside, I find the Nazi Ninth a terrifying performance. Furtwangler may well have stuck around because he liked certain aspects of Nazi cultural policy, but just listen to the end of this symphony. He was no Nazi. Instead of joy, I hear teeth-gritting anger. Maybe I’m reading too much into it. If I hadn’t seen the film of this performance maybe I wouldn’t feel the same. But I don’t know, though. The Bayreuth performance has a similar frenetic coda, but there’s still some celebration and joy there, breathless euphoria, even. The ‘Nazi Ninth’ finishes with a tempest of ugly brute force. I like to think Furtwangler was making a statement.
Completely agree. The first time I listened to this performance I got the feeling Furtwängler unleashes Beethoven's fury against the smug and pompous Nazis sitting in the hall, 'embodying' German culture.
Totally agree Scot - the sheer battery of furious Percussion at the end, and the ridiculous tempo by the end are grotesque. This surely was Furtwangler using Beethoven to make a point
I would tend to think that Furtwängler adapted the whole thing to his audience of the day, in particular a small man with a ridiculous moustache that probably had the same concept of classical music and military/pub one and would enjoy a drunken choir singing Heidi, Heido the same he would the 2nd movement of the 7th. I would not blame it, Furtwängler was in the tigers cage.
He was a Nazi, he watched and said nothing when Many conductors left Germany in 33, he did nothing when Jewish Musicians were thrown out of the Orchestra's all over Germany and Austria, he talk all the acclaim from the Nazi regime, he worked with the Regime he was part of the so called cultural section of the Nazi's , I can tell you that many Musicians after the War had problems to play for him, it was Yehudi Menhuin who made the Man look Human after WW2.
@@robertevans8010 that is simply not true, Furtwängler helped a lot of Jewish musicians in Nazi Germany to escape, and in the post-war trials, some of the survivors even defended Furtwängler. In fact, it was the disdain from some postwar musicians (Toscanini, Horowitz etc.) that prevented Furtwängler from making more music.
I've known your view of Furtwangler's Beethoven for years and am old enough now to not be disturbed by such things! I'm not a trained musician and so tend to go with my emotional reaction to performances above all. The first time I heard the 3/42 9th, close to 30 years ago, remains the most powerful music experience I've had outside of a concert hall. I knew the piece pretty well, but that experience opened up a whole new musical world for me.
If I'm not mistaken, you at least have a positive view of the 12/8/52 Eroica, another huge favorite of mine.
I have a positive view of many Furtwangler performances, including the Lucerne 9th, lots of his Brahms, Wagner, and other things besides. It's no secret. I think his Second Symphony is a minor masterpiece, and I've written about it extensively. You always get a reputation from the most scandalous things you say. If I praise something he did, it's not considered newsworthy, but the evidence is certainly out there if anyone cares enough to look.
I myself picked up the LP in Leeds market for 99p back in 1980. I had never heard anything as good as the first movement and third movement and it had me stomping round the room. The first movement is like a river approaching a cataract. Stunning. I shudder to think who was in the audience but I am not sure that is relevant to my emotional reaction.
That Eroica is the best i've ever heard in my life.
@@Felipe.Taboada. nah, Honneck , Tennstedt live and early Walter are as good if not better .
@@nihilistlemon1995 that Eroica is the best "I" have ever heard in my life.
I should have added I love your willingness to “talk tachlis,” always a favored Yiddish phrase in my family growing up. Still loving Kletzki and the Czech woodwinds in the 9th; thanks again for recommending that beautiful gem of a cycle.
Sorry Alex, it's not spelt 'tachlis' but 'tacheles'
@@helmutbooks transliteration from Yiddish in Hebrew characters to the English or German alphabet is an imperfect art, but I’m happy to recognize your wisdom.
Hi. In my younger years I adored this performance (big furt fan here) but now after more listening experience and matured in age (30 yrs later) I kinda agree with what you’re saying! Thanks for your great channel.
I agree with everything David has said here. But there is one aspect of this performance, which wasn't mentioned, which I find to be remarkable and that is the chorus (but definitely not those hideous soloists). While not the best trained chorus, or even the most musical in interpretation and phrasing, what is conveyed to me is a desperate plea for peace and an end to war. I have 14 recordings of the 9th, and have heard a dozen or more live performances. None of them come close to the emotional impact of this chorus. The closest I've heard was a live performance by the L.A. Phil conducted by Lucas Foss at the Hollywood Bowl many years ago. I don't remember who the chorus was, but they were really fabulous, as was the whole performance.
Strange, whenever I hear the word, "Freude" the sound of jackboots always seems to follow.
I agree that from a performance and sonics point of view, it is shit! But as an historical document, it is fascinating. The film footage of the end of the final movement as Nazi propaganda was grotesque: the disfigured servicemen, the swastika flag, Dr. Furtwängler clearly wiping his hand after a handshake with Dr Goebbels. The performance was not so much a transcendental moment as a rage: a rage against the war, a rage against the Nazis criminals: a rage against those that decry and devalue and seek to destroy a German humanist culture that Furtwängler held dear: the culture of Beethoven, Herder, Kant, Schiller, and Goethe.
That is such nonsense.
@@DavesClassicalGuide You cannot possibly know whether that is nonsense or not!
@@theforceiswithme8804 I can, and I do.
Furtwängler was an anti-Nazi and made his feelings known to the powers in control. He was due to be arrested in early 1945 by the Gestapo because of his stance. I remember reading about Friedelind Wagner (granddaughter of Richard Wagner), how she witnessed a meeting between Hitler and Furtwängler at her mother's Bayreuth home. Apparently she said - "I remember Hitler turning to Furtwängler and telling him that he would now have to allow himself to be used by the party for propaganda purposes, and I remember that Furtwängler refused categorically. Hitler flew into a fury and told Furtwängler that in that case there would be a concentration camp ready for him. Furtwängler quietly replied: 'In that case, Herr Reichskanzler, at least I will be in very good company.'" Unlike Karajan who joined the Nazi Party twice (apparently to further his music career); Furtwängler never did. It's an interesting story. The question is though - did it affect his conducting? It appears to me that Karajan was great at conveying that German element of German style performance.
I came to this post in a weird way: I was on RUclips looking up the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics and had been struck by the use of the finale to Beethiven's Ninth as part of the soundtrack. This got me to thinking about how other genodical regimes have used the Ninth as an ode to national pride, and so I decided I wanted to re-listen to Furtwängler's Nazi-era Ninth, recorded and filmed in a hall bedecked with swastikas and Goebbels and other Nazi bigwigs in attendance. I notice that some of the comments reflect Furtwaugler's love-hate relationship with the Nazis and claim the overwrought percussion and angry, slashing tempi in the first two movements express his anger at the Nazis for what they had done and were still doing to Germany. Oddly, my favorite recording of any Beethoven symphony is a Ninth by Furtwängler - not this one but the performance that reopened the Bayreuth festival after the war ini 1951. It has everything the Nazi-era performance lacks: a magisterial opening, a demonic Scherzo, a slow movement to die for and a finale that turns messy a couple of times (despite producer Walter Legge's attempts to cover by splicing in sections from Furtwängler's rehearsals) but remember getting to know that performance from the Seraphim LP reissue and being blown away. But I still think I could assemble an ideal Beethoven Ninth by coupling the first and third movements of Furtwängler/Bayreuth, the scherzo from Felix Weingartner's 1935 recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, and the finale from Toscanini's recording. since Toscanini was far better than Furtwängler at the technical end of conducting, especially at keeping complex ensemble passages together.
Thanks for your comments and presentation of this historical recording. I want to add a notice: Furtwängler often wanted to overwhelm emotionally with his interpretation. And there are some moments in this piece, where he can surely use it therefore.. And in this aspect he meets a very important trait of the nazi-ideology. Also Nazi ideology wanted to overwhelm the people, the right, white german people, of cause. So there is an aspect where Furtwängler and the nazis came together at a level below ideology, but which could nevertheless support it. This may explain some roughness and even neglect of appropriate interpretation, which impresses nevertheless people around the world until today. Have a good time, Andreas
Many thanks for all of your reviews, are a great source of information and extremely enjoyable. Missed this one when came out. Just a thought about the percussion in the first movement, not sure if it is just me but I can hear war and destruction. Perhaps it was intentional? Might tie together with lack of refinement and lack of "spirituality"? Could have been intentional but agree should not always look for the "good" in people.
Finally someone willing to tell it like it is. There's another famous recording (not by Furtwängler) that I daren't mention here that everyone I know praises to the skies, and much of its mystique is the direct result of its terrible sonics.
Hank - my friend - I suspect this is a reference to Kna's Bruckner 4th from 1944! Best wishes, B
@@bernardohanlon3498 Great to see you! Nope, not a Bruckner fan. I'll email you.
Make a guess- Mengelberg Mahler 4？
Don't be coy Hank, spill the beans, nobody's going to sue you!
Nooo he still hasn't said it. Which is it?
About the timpani, yes, I agree. If I wanted to be polite, I would mention Nielsen's percussion duel or Verdi's Dies Irae, but in fact the impression I got is that the timpanist had got his practice knocking on doors at midnight with the Gestapo. It's absurdly violent. Abendroth, whom you mention with favour, had a tendency to turn Beethoven into a herald of grim fate and heartless nature, but he never went to this extent.
Check out Furtwangler's Bayreuth 1954 performance (NOT Lucerne - Bayreuth one is another performance from two weeks earlier).
The timpani are... pretty much the same as in Berlin 1942.
Are we confusing the March recording with the 19th April recording??
How were the March and April recorded? mics, wire recording etc.
Just two days ago my sister and I were working while binge-listening to all of Beethoven’s symphonies conducted by Furtwängler and during the Ninth, we kept staring at each other at many “chun-ta-ta-esque instances we (non-musicians) perceived.
I'm not sure, bit I don't think Dave is fond of this recording.
"It's like an impacted wisdom tooth of music"
"The intonation is unlistenable...here...listen."
"If a bomb would have fallen on them, we would have had one less ninth."
"They're goose stepping...like Nazis."
You've outdone yourself this time and I salute you sir.
Gee thanks!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Don't mince words, Dave. Tell us what you REALLY think!
Dave has a wicked sense of humour and a taste for hyperbole. If only there were more like that. I love it!
totally!
You dressed up for this occasion!
I love Furtwangler, but I never liked this recording that much, or really his interpretation in the 9th and I think the Lucerne performance is far far better than even the Bayreuth. Furtwangler's 9ths are some of the slower 9ths in the discography. So I do want to point out that you say Abendroth is very similar to Furtwangler, but in the 9th Abendroth has a faster conception and only got faster over the years. However he did get recorded in 1951 with the Czech PO that I think has even more dreadful sound quality than Furtwangler's 1942!
He's a fact that I gather you'd find uninteresting. I checked this and this early strike of the timpani at the begginig of the 4th movement happens in most (but not all) Furtwangler's recordings of the Ninth that I'm aware of:
1937
1942 Berlin (March)
1942 Berlin (April)
1943 Stockholm
1951 Vienna
1951 Salzburg
1952 Vienna
1953 Vienna
So either all of these performances are botched or this detail actually was a part of Furtwangler's overall conception.
You're right. Who cares?
Surely part of the true geeeeenius of Fuertwaengler is to have produced an emotional approximation of reality in much the same way as Impressionist (or, indeed, Expressionist) artists(!) On another front, I can't help feeling that the "not togetherness" pointed out here reminds me of Jesse and Kurt's Vier Letzte...
greetings from Germany, feeling the anthill rumble with the ferocious timpani 😂🙉
😁
I wonder, have you heard Furtwangler's Bayreuth 1954 peformance of the Ninth? It's a recording from two weeks earlier (I think) than the Lucerne performance. It shares some qualities with the Berlin 1942 recording, including pretty horrible sound quality (a private recording of a radio broadcast) but also the bombastic timpani. In the "recapitulation" segment of the 1st movement you can hardly hear anything but the timpani, and in the start of the 4th movement again the timpanist strikes a bit prematurely.
Yes, I've heard it and I find it a total waste of time.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yeah, well, I guess the Lucerne one is a time better spent. I just find it interesting that these two recordings are so close to one another in time but so different. Which seems to point that the eccentricities of the 1942 recording (or at least some of them) had nothing to do with war. It just what Furtwangler produced...
The review you've produced here is simply one of the most accomplished examples of independence of mind and courage for objective analysis I've ever seen.
Until you realize he's critiquing the a version recorded in APRIL of the same year that is known as the "nazi 9th" indeed because it was a forced present for hitler birthday confusing this version with the version from march, which is superb.
Your reviews always stoke my curiousity. I did listen to 10 minutes of the recording on You Tube until I could not listen anymore. I had to play the another historical recording, Bernstein's concert after the fall of the wall, to air out the room. My reaction to that pick-up ensemble was largely emotional, but that still worked for me.
another legendary video from my favorite youtube channel
regarding his 'technique', there are three important facts that pertain to everyone: 1. no matter whether you have the technique or not, if you conduct mainly one orchestra all the time, the musicians' eyes adjust to the conductor's beat and react. 2. the musicians' anxiousness/ nervousness either from lack of rehearsals( Gergiev) or inability to 'read' the maestro's gestures causes, to a certain degree, a unique energy( sadistic as it might be towards the musicians) and energy is never a bad thing in a classical music piece, and 3. the second a conductor begins prematurely their career ( and operate under huge spotlight), he stops developing conducting-wise. period. other things develop( image, comfort in front of an orchestra/audience, etc) but not the technique, which is much more than just time-beating in symphonic conducting.
I have this recording somewhere and haven't heard it in years. To be honest, I thought that your player got stuck during the adagio for a minute and was about to dig my cd out to see if it was really that slow, but by the time your video was over, I decided that it wasn't worth the trouble. Great review as always!
A long time ago, I was watching a WW II documentary (probably The World at War). There was footage of a conductor exhorting an orchestra, playing the 9th finale. I'm guessing it was footage of the performance David is talking about.
Well, if it was a skinny man wildly gesticulating with a very long baton seemingly with no connection to the music, that was probably it.
We used to call these performances "exciting in the worst sense". Exciting because it may fly apart at any moment.
Ha! Your description sounds like how I feel about The Rolling Stones live 1972-78. They feel on the verge of exploding or going off a cliff. But in rock n roll, that’s a plus, and that’s my favorite Stones. 😃
Right on! I just compared the 1942 and 1954 Lucerne performances, and EXACTLY AS YOU SAY, the final bars of the 9th are sloppy mush in the 1942 version but remarkably clear and articulate in the Lucerne version even if both are taken at the same breakneck speeds.
To quote Anna Russell: "I'm not making this up, you know!"
I tried listening to this recording. As soon as the timpani started clipping the audio my tinnitus flared up
If you allow, there is another more general comment I would like to make. I don't want to waste your time, so just tell me if you think I'm just dirtying the pages and I will stop. The comment is the following. As a fine historian and musicologist, you certainly know that the art of conducting, when it developed from the XIX-th to the XX-th century, it followed two main lines: the Toscanini line and the Mahler line, which eventually became the Nikisch-Furtwängler line. The Toscanini line payed great attention to the precision of the performance, fidelity to the score, etc. The Mahler line was more keen to "unravelling" or "unearthing" what lies behind the score, thus paying less attention to precision and score faithfulness. For these last conductors, technique became "just" a byproduct, or a collateral effect. This is just a historical fact; so you don't expect conductors of the Mahler line to play differently; but this doesn't mean that their achievements are less worthy. Nowadays, the two lines almost merged (they learned from each other) and conductors like Carlos Kleiber, Abbado or Salonen (just to name a few) present elements of both streams.
Bets regards, Lucio.
I think this is total nonsense. There are no "lines" as you describe them, and generalize about them. The reality was always far messier and more nuanced than you describe, seriously. Where on earth do we come up with these things? No one was more picky about score details then Mahler. Why do you think he re-orchestrated Beethoven and Schumann in such detail? And Toscanini was far freer and less literal then his reputation would suggest. Furtwängler's performances were far often more similar to each other than Toscanini's were, and that's a demonstrable fact.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Well, this goes back to readings i did in my youth, I wouln't be able to quote this and that after so many years. But you just contradicted yourself, by mentioning Mahler's meddlings with the authentic scores of Beethoven and Schumann: he might have been faithful to HIS score, not the author's. In addition here is a quotation of Mahler: "In a score there is everything except the essential" (Q. Principe, "Mahler" - I'm translating literally from Italian). Anyway, it doesn't matter. After all, I agree with you about the 1942 Beethoven Ninth.
@@luciodemeio1 There is no contradiction at all. Look at what Toscanini did to Tchaikovsku's Manfred, or Debussy's La Mer. Everyone, ultimately, is faithful their own conception of the work. The fact that some conductors play with scoring while others play with tempo is irrelevant. Both are playing. Both claim to be faithful to the spirit of the work.
Furtwangler 3/42 Beethoven's 9th had been my favorite until I recently heard in a movie the Colombian Conductor Andrés Orozco-Estrada and the Vienna Philharmonic. (Not available on RUclips). He es Principal Conductor of Vienna Symphonic and there is a recording of him conducting this symphony witn the Frankfut Radio Symphony Orchestra
Well, I suppose I’m going to get hauled over the coals for this opinion, but here goes. This is one of my very favourite records. I bought it on TAHRA some time in the 90s, after borrowing the Bayreuth 9th from the local library. It quickly became my favourite for the 9th and my disc of Karajan’s 1977 gathered dust thereafter, except for once a year when I’d get that out and give it a spin. The Karajan was better recorded and better played, obviously, but there was something missing which the ‘42 Berlin 9th had, at least for me - some other dimension. And I have to confess I’m still not sure what that is; but the only other recording that has really caught my ear since has been Fricsay. Wand is good of course, but for me there’s no fire in his belly.
So, it’s all sadly subjective on my part. But if music is just entertainment, I can honestly say that I’ve had so many hours of joy from this music. I hit me emotionally, I think. I felt, and still feel, a real sense of foreboding in the first movement. Foreboding and terror in the second - release in the trio you highlighted - then the screw tightened again. Serenity, beauty and pure joy in the string sound of the third movement - and just about everything known to mankind in the finale. I have to be honest, I’ve had chills listening to this disc
. I love the timpani in the first movement btw, it sounds like they have Ginger Baker wielding the sticks!
I’m not into this personality cult thing and don’t have Furtwangler posters or tee shirts or duvet covers. Wouldn’t do the same for Toscanini either, though I really enjoy him in Beethoven - except the Ninth. I like some other Furtwangler Beethoven, especially some of the Eroicas and some of the Fifths. I love his pre-war Wagner excerpts, his Walkure, his Schumann 4, Schubert 9 and Bruckner 8 & 9. Some of his Brahms too. The Mozart operas I heard I didn’t like at all, but I do enjoy his Mozart 40th.
I’m not convinced he couldn’t be a ‘time beater’ if he’d wanted to be: it’d be hard to imagine somebody with that degree of musical knowledge not to have a grasp of the downbeat. Hugh Bean, former concertmaster of the Philharmonia said he thought Furtwangler was after something else. Don’t know what that might have been though, but Bean seemed impressed.
Anyway, I love it. And it is love, something inside me vibrates in frequency with it. And no, I’m not going to get rid of it. So there!
Now you can throw me to the lions.
That's totally understandable as far as I am concerned. As I've said many times, we never really know what's going to "hit" us, or even why. However, you answered a major question for me when you indicated that after you heard this version you retired Karajan '77. I would suggest that you would never have felt the same about this version had you not first learned the work in a decent sounding performance, and your love of F '42 happened, at least to a degree, because you knew what you were hearing, knew what to expect, and could hear it in contrast to that earlier Karajan recording.
In other words, it is your knowledge of the work that permits you to overlook the defects in this version. What is missing then comes from within you, not from F's performance, and I find this a fascinating subject to explore--the possibility that what attracts some listeners may be the opportunity to actively participate in recreating the music as it's played because the actual performance doesn't do it adequately. it's "music minus one" for record collectors. If true, I can well imagine the special, deeper kind of satisfaction that this kind of listening might afford some music lovers.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Wow, that's something I'd never even considered. I'd never really thought of it as anything except a primal, emotional response. However, that might not answer when I consider my great love of Fricsay. He's completely different to Wild Bill F. Then, so is Toscanini, so is Klemperer, so is Szell, so is Jochum - and I love certain recordings by each of them. And that kind of brings us around to the joy of listening to music and the all out fun of this site. I've downloaded so much great stuff since watching your videos - and it's been pure joy. For example, I always loved Klemperer's Brahms and his Magic Flute, but didn't know his Bruckner. Now I'm spending hours with his Bruckner - and that's down to you. So, thanks!
@@stuartclarke4683 Thank you for taking my comment seriously. I am kind of fascinated by issues of musical perception and how we experience a performance in real time--how we create a mental image of a work and use it as the basis to chose the performances that affect us most deeply. I take your point about Fricsay, but I would only add that some performances invite a certain KIND of listening and others do not. There's nothing limiting us to one or the other.
Can I suggest this is a very imperfect performance of a great and very well known work (which permits the phenomenon David refers to) that has some *arguably* special 'moments'? Yes, I understand where Stuart is coming from in terms of the feel of the string sound at *certain points* in the Adagio, or the angry sound at other points of the symphony, but the problem for me is that the generally horrid balances (which are responsible for creating the 'demonic' sound that people seem to, for some curious reason, attribute to Furtwangler's artistic direction) and the mistakes, and they ARE mistakes (of which the erroneous horn entry at about 14 and a half minutes or so is particularly embarrassing) spoil it for me.
I also dislike the fact that people talk about a certain moment in the recording, seemingly forgetting that the specific point where something happens changes by quite a number of seconds in EVERY single CD/download/stream of this because no one really knows exactly how long the ACTUAL performance on the night was! For example, the Adagio can be anything from about 19 mins 40 secs to 20 mins 40 secs!
Above all, I am not on the same page as those who think a sluggish tempo almost automatically equates to "spiritual"!
@@bwpm1467 Hi Matt, I know exactly what you mean. I can't defend myself, but I just love the sound. It gives me chills. Once you get into technical details and social history context, your gut reaction gets lost. Of course there are mistakes - and of course the sound is poor: I mean it's WW2 radio! Unfortunately for me, I don't have the technical musical knowledge to explain my preferences, not really. But even if I did it wouldn't help. All I can say is I've heard Toscanini, Stokowski, Bohm, Karajan, Wand, Barenboim, Abbado, Rattle, Solti, Mackerras and a host of others - but this is the one that does it for me. In most B9s I just switch off, even in the concert hall. That's not deliberate though, especially when I've paid good money. For me, it's a little like my love for Miles Davis. He split notes all over the place, he wasn't the greatest horn player technically - but what he produced by being what he was when he was - was something else. Anyway, why I like what I like in music has always been a bit of a mystery to me. God bless.
If I heard this and didn't know what it was, I would have labeled it as a "vintage lo-fi bugs bunny cartoon interpretation of the 9th"
I am pleased to agree with you on this one. Furtwangler plus Nazis equals mystic properties which I cannot listen to in the performance. This reminds me of the infamous Dvorak 9th by Kabasta / Munich which was for years attributed to Furtwangler / Berlin. I remember enthusiastic comments which became much more uncommon when the real performers were revealed. It would be interesting to know how many copies were sold when attributed to Furtwangler, and how many since it is known to be Kabasta's. The same performance is not supernatural anymore!
A very good point. I remember that Kabasta business too--for a brief time there was a Kabasta craze but it soon died out.
The final prestissimo of Furtwangler's 1942 version is truly bizarre and comical, frankly.
Indeed it is.
As usual, your review is spot on. I confess I do enjoy occasionally listening to this cataclysmic performance, but my absolute favorite is the Ferenc Fricsay; everything about it puts poor Furtwangler to shame.
That's OK. I like watching "Snapped."
My favourite Furtwängler's Ninth is the WPO live recording from 1953. Most of the post-war recordings from 1947 to the end of his life, were of much better quality than those made during WWII. Most of the comments in this video about the performance are in my opinion justified, however, the bad audio quality at least mostly is due to the equipment and technology used in the 1940s. Whether or not the tympani were too loud on the recording due to inferior sound engineering or not, I'm not sure.
To me, whether or not Hitler and his chums were in the audience or not does not influence my opinion of a Furtwängler recording. My favourite is the 1953 performance, and if history had been different and Hitler had been present at the 1953 recording, it would still not have influenced my opinion for or against. You could say, as critical listener, I would be what Sweden was in WWII.... NEUTRAL. I simply don't care if Hitler or Goebbels were in the audience, nor Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. I can't be any blunter than that.
I don't care either, musically, but it's a titillating fact and you can't fail to mention it. Also, it is inarguable that for some it does matter, and the circumstances of the performance have contributed much to its mystique. It was only Goebbels, by the way.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Yes, to be honest, I only saw Goebbels on the brief film clip of the performance on youtube. I believe Furtwängler used it as evidence, after the war, that he never gave the Hitler-salute to Goebbels in public.
In my opinion, this interpretation is a clear statement against barbarism and against National Socialism. Against everything that characterised Natonaslsozialism. Everyone who has ears must hear this! Any technical details, whether this succeeds or fails, are of completely secondary importance. Furtwängler cannot be considered detached from the social circumstances in which he worked.
Exactly. Beethoven is of secondary importance. Music is of secondary importance. Decent playing and sound are of secondary importance. That, and the fact that the qualities you claim for this performance are completely illusory--but of course you're entitled to believe whatever you like. Still, we can get the same history lesson a million other places, and not at Beethoven's expense. Frankly, I'm tired of this faux-historical "interpretation" in hindsight of an irredeemably bad performance. I think it's very telling that the one person who could have substantiated your claim--Furtwängler himself--never said any such thing about it, and heaven knows he had every opportunity and every reason to do so after the War. The reason he didn't say anything about it is because (a) he had no idea the performance would be released without his authorization and acquire the mythical reputation it has, and (b) he would NEVER have used (or abused) Beethoven in such a squalid way. He was far too idealistic and self-consciously apolitical for that, and (c) if he had any dignity as an artist he would have had the good sense to be embarrassed and humiliated that such a recording even exists.
Very interesting video. In watching this an idea popped in my head. It seems like it would make for VERY interesting viewing if you went head-to-head with other critics (other ClassicsToday critics with differing views, to keep it in the family?) in debate fashion in regards to select recordings. Not to make things too complicated, but it seems like it would be easy to do this via zoom or some other means. I just think it would be fascinating to see you go against someone with an opposite view of some famous recordings, of which this Furtwangler Beethoven 9th surely is one. You could call it "Classicstoday Cage Fights" or something like that. I'm serious about this, it would be fun.
I agree; I already plan to do something with Jed Distler (not in an adversarial way), but your suggestion does sound like fun. Let's see what develops. You know, it's very strange--I have only been doing this for 10 weeks now, but it seems like forever. I've made @250 videos, both to prepare for launch and subsequently. I'm a bit overwhelmed and very gratified with the very enthusiastic and (mostly) positive response, and I've gotten so many good ideas from viewers. I just need some time to digest it all and see what I can put together, but I truly appreciate the excellent idea! Thank you.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Pace yourself. Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say.
i would like hear your opinion on karajans nazi complicity
i love the mans art but my god the mindless and sycophantic way his fans have absolved him of any crime is astounding to me. you know far more about him than i do perhaps its not so simple
cheers
I think his complicity was morally despicable, but I really don't understand why this is still being discussed. If this means you don't want to listen to him, then don't. He was a great musician, so each person has to decide how much it matters as a purely musical issue. Artists are narcissists. They screw each other and sell themselves like whores routinely. Karajan was no exception. If I refused to listen to the work of any musician who was a bad person there probably wouldn't be very much left. Even the nice ones are often hopelessly vain and self-absorbed. I don't believe for a minute that Karajan subscribed to Nazi ideology. He was an opportunist, just like most of them. So what else is new?
@@DavesClassicalGuide
hah, yes well of course this is true, i suppose i am just reacting to the tiresome reliability with which any youtube karajan stuff has (with literal nazis) his fans saying how actually he did nothing wrong and is so wonderful etc
let me reiterate i love karajan
almost as if i shouldnt worry myself about the opinions of youtube commenters, big shock
This was fascinating. I can now see Furtwangler in the same light as Richard Strauss, whose willingness to go along with the Nazis I have always felt slightly queasy about. The performance itself is what counts, though. Great review.
Listen to the Lucerne recording. It is in way better sound.
Strauss is not the same case at all. He had a Jewish daughter-in-law, which compromised his ability to publicly speak out against the nazi policies. He did call Goebbels an idiot a few times though, which is rather fun, isn’t it? In short, Furtwängler ≠ Strauss.
@@leonbernsdorf2548 Furtwängler has called Hitler a "rabid dog".
Great content! Could you do a review/critique of the Shostakivich #7? The Bernstein 1989 recording with CSO? Toscanini's North American premiere? A best/worst versions?
Sure I could--but I can't tell you when. I do want to do it eventually.
I have an idea that David would probably post the Toscanini as worst. Toscanini hated performing it, and removed it from his mind so fast that when he came upon the score years later he could not remember - or believe - that he had performed it. And as for Shostakovich, his opinion of the performance was unusually forthright and undiplomatic.
Golly, a tie! And a book to add to my already-tottering pile of to-be-reads! I think this may exceed the legal delight limit for a Wednesday morning. Seriously, the Ringer book sounds like just my kind of thing ... and I *just* finished an account of German Idealist philosophy 1760-1860, so am primed for such a "what made Germany wack" read.
This will do it. It's a brilliant study and so helpful in understanding why so many German intellectuals either tacitly supported or ignored the Nazi threat.
I was at a concert years ago in a town here in Hungary. Local orchestra played the 9th in the huge basilica. A young girl talked about the work before the concert. She said that this is the greatest masterpiece of all times and things like that. Ordinary things. The concert was horrible partly because that huge (but otherwise beautiful) hall was unsuited for a piece like this. Echo was huge, everything blurred. I was thinking about that what poor people thought who heard that symphony first time. Girl said that this is a huge masterpiece and after that came this blurred mess. Orchestra wasn't good either.
Over-prominent tympani also afflict the 1941 Toscanini/Buenos Aires Beethoven 9th. Many people hear extra "ferocity", but I am not convinced.
Furtwängler always liked excessively loud timpani at climaxes; it was part of his special "sound," and when it was in balance it was very exciting. Often, however, it was just crude.
I have been a fan of the 9th since Clockwork Orange in 1971 which I believe used the London Symphony recording which was not bad. I listened to many recordings and until now the 1963 recording by H Karajan has been my favourite. Furtwangler certainly has his moments, but the 1942 version recorded from radio broadcast is a chore to listen to. I am glad to know about the further details from David. I also quite enjoyed the one by Gunter Wand.
I looked it up: the Clockwork Orange soundtrack featured Fricsay's 1958 Ninth (second mvt) and Karajan's 1963 Ninth (fourth movement).
This video just gets better (and funnier) every time I watch it. Thanks, David! It does seem that many people believe something is amazing artistically just because it sonically sounds like it's echoing back across the galaxy from another time.
I found a video of the recording here on RUclips. In a comment one said that it was the interpretation that Beethoven would have wanted. But, that’s their opinion.
I’ve never understood why the audio is so bad on the old Furtwängler records. The Germans were so technologically advanced in most areas, but I’ve heard Boston Symphony recordings from the ‘30s and even late ‘20s that sound way better.
Dear David,
I totally agree with you on this. I was pointed towards this recording by an enthusiastic record shop owner, and really disliked it. I kept to my favourite then and still forty years later ... Klemperer with the Philharmonia on EMI.
Best wishes from George
Thanks for letting me know.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Dear David,
I learned the Choral from Klemperer on the original English Columbia four side pressing. I [even as a ten year old] was able to read the conductor's score. I was amazed how Dr Klemperer not only followed but caused the orchestra to make audible, the markings, dynamic, and tempo related, to give almost a perfect rendition of detail, whilst always making the full flow of the overall concept..
I studied this most amazing work as a ten year old [fifty years ago], and decided to buy my own record of it. I bought the French EMI Paris Conservatoire recording on a single LP [cost £1.05] and found many of the faults you describe in in Furtweangler's 1942 performance replicated. Horrible balances, unclear details, if with less unpleasant timpani.
The music teacher asked me if he could use my new LP for Music Appreciation lessons [last lesson on Saturday morning in a boarding school] and I said, "No! it is rotten performance. The school library recording with Klemperer was far more revealing" He asked me what I knew about it. I replied, "I have studied the score in intense detail." I was ten. He never spoke to me again for three years.
Since then I have found the 1957 live Klemperer performance, and the 1960 or 1961 Klemperer live performances [both pocked by mistakes as is normal enough for unedited live recordings] and find that Klemperer knew what he aiming at, and actually exceeded what was possible in the studio with editing. The flow is important. Some details may go wrong, but to be human is necessarily to fail in detail is normal.
Please excuse my long post, but if it were not for music [mostly Bach and Haydn] I would see no reason to wake up again.
Best wishes from George
@@georgejohnson1498 Thank you for sharing your story with all of us.
There is a certain kind of roughness and even "badness" that actually can lend music a certain power and depth of feeling that is far more interesting to me than a perfectly in tune and on time presentation. This is not surprising since I come from a vernacular music background where Blind Willie Johnson's voice is one of the supreme expressive instruments. It likely also explains my preference for the rougher sound of period instruments. Nothing you've pointed out about this performance is really arguable IF what's of primary importance is an idea (or sound) of orchestral "rightness" but clearly that wasn't on the top of Furtwangler's list of concerns that night, and as you say, he might not have been able to get it even if it were. I'm suspicious of people throwing the term spiritual around when discussing art, but whatever the secular, atheistic, anti-religious equivalent of that thing is (powerful describes part of it, sentiment perhaps another) this performance evokes that for me in a way none other does. So shoot me. As a fellow member of the tribe, I am chagrined that this piece affects me so deeply considering who was in the audience, but so do the paintings of Emil Nolde (not to be compared to Beethoven as a clarification) who actually lobbied to be the official painter of the Nazi party only to be labeled a degenerate and be forbidden to paint. Why do I give a pass to such a vile MFer? I think because it is necessary for Art to win out over murderous mass hysteria and the destructive impulses of our pitiable species. I've listened to a ton of classical music over many years and especially enjoy comparing performances of a piece played or conducted by different people though interestingly I've not done that with the Ninth. I own about 10 performances of the B Minor mass - Gustave Leonhardt for the win. I am very grateful to you for introducing me to Erich Kkleiber's fabulous 5th which replaces my other faves by Furtwangler, Toscanini, Szell, and Hogwood ( always thought Carlos was dead as a doornail and just wrong sounding) and am now an avid listener/ viewer of your RUclips posts. Great work. Thanks.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion of this controversial performance!
Much of the Furtwangler mystique vanished when youtube gave people a chance to hear for free the airchecks that were difficult to obtain years ago. Part of the Furtwangler legend depended on the obstacles that collectors had to overcome in order to find some of his legendary recordings. If you had a certain Bruckner 8th it was the wrong one- only the Toshiba EMI issue from Japan had the correctly pitched version. And if you owned a Brahms 1 you just had to have the Hamburg 1951 only available on some transfer-Tahra?- which was a miracle. And then many moons ago ,DG Japan issued a complete Furtwangler edition that cost a small fortune, but entitled you to bragging rights. I would guess that many collectors just collected this stuff and never listened to it, but owning it conferred superiority on the collector... today Furtwangler is available to any moe that wants to listen to it, and so Furtwangler's reputation has suffered. Never fear though there are squirrel-scholars out there gathering airchecks that aren't on youtube and are only availabe to ..maybe 20 nutty people who who can barely conceal their glee at owning something you don't...
Some very shrewd observations here.
I thought the March 22/24 performance was recorded for the 40th anniversary of the Bruno Kittel Chorus. But, the Nazi birthday performance was from April 19, 42.... or am I mixing them up?
Same difference.
Good review. I'm convinced. Maybe Karajan, rather than Toscanini, was the anti-Furtwängler. Hard to imagine woodwinds and strings poorly blended together in a Karajan recording.
Furtwangler certainly thought so!
Those cymbals in the coda are an affront to good taste, indeed, but the triangle just before that is equally ludicrous. Almost impressive how the engineers made it sound like a pair of anvils.
It was a gift.
What do you think of Szell's 9th from 1960s with Chicago, especially the first movement?
You mean Cleveland don't you? It's fantastic that recording.
I almost purchased this 1942 recording, but I hesitated because knowing that Hitler and Goebbels were in the audience made me uneasy. I don’t want a performance that included those men in the hall to play in my car.
Thank you for this entertaining and well illustrated review...now that you've articulated your standards for assessing historical recordings so clearly, I'd love to hear your feelings about the Van Cliburn Rachmaninov 3 performance at the Tchaikovsky competition (on Testament CD and also available on DVD)... Love your video...keep them coming!
I can live without Cliburn too.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Generally I agree with you about Cliburn, but the warmth and excitement of this performance moves me, technical warts and all...heads and shoulders above his studio stuff...Cheers!
@@martinhochbaum8936 Sure, if you enjoy it then go for it.
David, Do you think the miserable woodwind intonation in the Adagio might be due to tape stretching? Something related: I have a 9th from the NYPhil conducted by Mehta live also with questionable intonation in the same spot on a early digital recording!
I think it's certainly possible that some sort of engineering foible creates that impression.
I call it, the 9th from the pit of hell.
Dave, fascinating video. I enjoyed listening to your thoughts, and I am mostly inclined to agree. You didn't make mention of the horn fluff (the guy comes in too early!) at about 14 and a half minutes or so into the Adagio. Totally horrible.
Good point! Thanks for mentioning it.
I love it when David critiques unjustifiably popular recordings; cds from hell!
i have a story, which seemed possibly accurate, but now that i do a bit of research, apparently it is not. at least this part seems to be: it involves chicago's musical fafner for so many years, claudia cassidy. so the story goes that she urged furtwangler NOT to take the cso podium in '47 b/c the state dept would not have given him permission to enter the counrty. well, he did conduct in 47 and beyond and was going to take it as principal conductor in '49, but there was, shall we say a ruckus, amongst some of the big names. he did finally take the podium in either 52 or 53. it surprises me, as chicago has a large jewish population who attend symphony concerts and more to the point give boatloads of money to the symphony. i think it an odd choice at an odd time.
Whatever we may think from the comfort of our present day position of Furtwangler's decision to remain in Germany, the man was no nazi, and he actually helped a lot of jewish musicians escape from the third reich, always refused to take the nazi salute and kept promoting so called "degenerate" composers. His main faults were his political apathy and naivety.
Saw a really good documentary about the Nazis using music as propaganda. It focused on this performance, a cellist who was in Auschwitz and Furtwangler's relationship with the Third Reich. The cellist was part of an all female orchestra. The Nazis had an orchestra in every concentration camp. Requing them to play music by German composers as people were being sent to the gas chamber. Truly horrific. Furtwangler's performace of The 9th, is the culmination of everything that was wrong with the Nazi regime. Agree with Dave. It's time to call a spade a spade.
Furwangler’s Ninth at Bayreuth is probably my favourite Beethoven Ninth recording of all time however!
There is a hilarious story I read once of Furtwangler and Hitler having a drunk, bare-knuckled fight in Siegfried Wagner’s house if I remember! Savage!!!
Hilarious, eh?
@David Hurwitz
Well, I don’t think hilarious was the word I was thinking of, “interesting” more like. Not sure if it was actually true or not, just something I heard, but I do like to imagine the scene anyway!
He was no stranger to breaking the draconian rules of the Third Reich though, refusing to give the flat-palmed salute, refusal to conduct the Horst Wessel-Lied and promoting so-called “degenerate” composers (most notably Schoenberg and Hindemith, two of my faves).
A very brave man to say the least, and a legend for doing so!
I have perfect pitch and It sounds like the woodwinds, especially the clarinets, are at least 1/6 of a tone off from the strings.
Sounds like more than that to me.
Thanks for your commentary, I listened to it, the more I think about this recording though the more I think how obscene it is, there is no need of nuanced critique here, the ugly truth is that many Jewish musicians, who were once part of this orchestra, were being incinerated while thus recording took place. That is obscene.
I research Jewish violinists in early twentieth century btw. You can Google my research. This is not a recording to give attention to. According to Carl Flesch's son, Furtwängler helped his father escape Nazi-occupied Holland, that may have some truth in it. Otherwise, no one should really be paying attention to this recording
Some one (who shall not be named) posted a film of a Furtwangler symphonic performance attended by a gaggle of preening Nazi elite. I asked if he thought there was one remaining Jew in the orchestra? I believe he mentioned the quality of the performance . I immediately withdrew my subscription.
Good for you!
David , any theories why menuhin was enamored with furtwanglers musicianship ?
I think F was an inspirational artist capable of very great things. His best recordings confirm that. It's just that most of them do not, and his cult members refuse to see it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks David, I appreciate the time you took to break down the problems of the performance and all your general comments on the circumstances were well put. Hagiography is a problem and a person's life is a mix of dark and light , no less true for F.
If only the Toscanini’s 1936 New York Philharmonic recording is released
It's an interesting performance and a very strange sounding 9th, but that's the best that I can say about it. What it comes down to is that it's not something that I would want to commemorate or memorialize, given the horrible political circumstances and the overly bold and forced interpretation of it by Mr. F. F for failure. Historical, yes. Regardless of whether it's pro Nazi or a defiant anti fascist statement by Furtwangler, it's a horrifying and brutal performance and I don't get its appeal. I don't need to like it and Furtwangler has zero control or a consistent vision as an interpreter here. Thank you for your entertaining and refreshing insights!
I hope someday you review Toscanini.
Furtwangler said his technique was to "draw the shape of the music in the air with the baton". The Nazi Ninth is an example . He wasn't drawing well that time!
Exactly.
I've never taken this recording seriously. Bad Sound, Nazis, who needs all that?
Precisely. Bad playing too. A trifecta of awfulness.
David I love you. This is the second time you are verifying an opinion of mine about a performance. The first was Horenstein conducting Mahler' s third. Now this atrocity! I always thought the 1942 version of Furtwangler's performance was ass.
I even had an argument with someone at Academy records who thought I missed the entire point of this one off recording.
Now here you devote an entire video explaining in detail why this recording is a dreary experience.
Again many thanks.
You're very welcome.
I know this one very well. Insane! But I bet you know Furtwangler's Coriolanus performance a couple of years later that is madder than a mad hatter.
Yeah, I also thought this was awful. What a trainwreck.
Tell it! I've been saying this for years, and have often referred to this performance, with disgust, as "the Heilfest." I have always regarded it as an awful performance, in wretched circumstances, and in miserable sound, that has acquired a following far beyond the wafer-thin merits that it might demonstrate.
I've seen people describe it as Furtwängler's protest against the Nazi regime: even if so, it's a protest that had absolutely no positive effect, and doubtless encouraged the slimy refuse of the top Nazi brass that they were somehow fulfilling Beethoven's dream of a world where all is enrobed in joy. An effective protest would have had the effect on them of "Gloomy Sunday," or if you prefer to keep things German, 𝘋𝘪𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘯 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴, causing those despicable turds to go home to find their razors and make the best possible use of them. Sadly, to the detriment of humanity, they did not.
As a performance, I have always found it wretched, and you have put your finger on the interpretive and executional failings.
And you have, probably unintentionally, echoed what I said on Usenet 12 years ago: "If Allied bombers had somehow managed to sneak in and bomb the hall, totally destroying it, the deaths of Furtwängler and the BPO would have been a regrettable, but tolerable, loss, and the world would be a better place."
(Bonus points for your mention of Alois Hába's "The Mother," which I regard as the single ugliest opera ever excreted.)
The notion of that performance as "protest against the regime" is totally stupid, not just because it's completely impossible to prove, but also because it differs in no major way from F's other versions of the Ninth apart from being more miserably played and recorded.
I haven't listened to this much and I blamed the technology and not the players and conductor - if someone told me that the discordant crashing noises were American bombs I probably would have believed them.
Was Furtwangler covering for the weak strings with the crazy timpani?
I don't think so.
The '42 Beethoven isn't a favourite of mine, to be sure. No argument there. I'd just like to query your point about wartime orchestras being unable to be effective - due to depletion of effective musicians etc. There's surely truth in that. Would you agree that there are, though, some extremely good wartime recordings by Furtwangler, especially later in the war - Brahms and Bruckner in particular?
Yes, I would agree with that. You have take each performance on a case by case basis.
Yes this recording is awful. You cover what's not there so well and appreciate the full sound that should be there. I look forward to you combining your CD reviews with HIFI equipment reviews. Finding the right performance is an essential but insufficient start. Getting that through player, DAC, pre-amp, power amp and speakers (or more easily headphones) is the other half. So what is them minimum HIFI required to sufficiently expose the music you recommend? What HIFI do you use?
Sorry, I don't deal with HiFi. It doubles the insanity!
Loved this answer
The opening of the studio Vltva blows the assumption that he was not into orchestral coordination. As well as the Goetterdammerung 1953 with the very mediocre Rome RAI who manage to pull off a prologue in which there is Mozartean transparency and delicacy which only SKD under Janowski could manage. One of those rare moments in recorded history in which the orchestra and singers seem as one, with lines handed down from one to another beautifully. And the opening chords so soft and luminous, unlike for example Solti's ugly uncoordinated conducting of the VPO (under studio condictions! weh's mir).
Of course. It was a studio recording. It "proves" nothing. Don't get me wrong: F was a great conductor. My point is that his greatness is only fitfully apparent in unauthorized airchecks of performances he doubtless never would have approved for release. I've said that a million times. He turned in great performances, he turned in extremely coherent and well-disciplined performances. This is not one of them, and moreover, it's the F fans who say he wasn't interested in good ensemble, and excuse lapses that, as a serious artist, he never would have tolerated.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I agree that that ninth is a fascinating horror. Personally I don't mind awful sonics but that's truly a timpani concerto. There's one further thing I want to point and that like Toscanini he never treats orchestral figures or fillers as such. Few people catch my meaning, but like Toscanini filling Beethoven's scales (in symph 1 IV for example) with melodic power, the same goes for Furt at his best in the Wagner figures or fillers. I have no idea how he does it but all notes are played at their full value and rounded pitch. Very few artists in my experience share that quality (Callas does, Rubinstein does).
@@kedemberger8773 I agree. It's a special quality.
@@DavesClassicalGuide yes it is and i think it helps to create the Stimmung feeling - that the performer sees the final bar from the very beginning. Another rare quality for singers of the 19th century repertoire from the onslaught of the verismo style (roughly the 1920s) is the inablity to color the tone according to the harmony and tension underneath, it is one of my OCDs. Notice hoe Eileen Farrell or Callas or Varnay or Lipovsek or Anita Cerquetti always color the tone according to whether its a passing note or part of the consonant notes, and the way they listen to the orchestra and model their phrasing and articulation to what's going on underneath or around - clarinets oboes etc. I think Ill sometime soon place some kind of an online talk about this on my channel. The best example is Farrells Oberon aria with Schippers, one of the best vocal records I have come across.
Ah but you hate singertalk
David, that's the grossest, vulgar, coarse, crude, obscene monstrosity i have ever heard. Thanks for that mate.
Even with a tie! This must be special content today
Of course it is
Your commentary is outstanding. It is true that there is always somewhere in the world that people are suffering while an audience somewhere else is enraptured. That doesn’t mean the audience is wearing blinders. In the case of this performance, Millions of minorities were being put into ovens by the honored guests before whom Furtwangler was performing while he was wielding his baton. I hadn’t known he opportunistically catered to the Third Reich.
Dave, this is easily the best, most thought-provoking of your videos - bravo. Spare no Sacred Cow. I have not listened to this B9 properly for many a year so it is now firmly on the playlist. Two comments if I may. Furtwangler already had the plum-job by the time Hitler became Chancellor in 1933; he had relinquished Leipzig in the late Twenties and he was already hardwired into the Vienna Phil. That being said, he was certainly protective of his turf, hence his antics when Karajan burst on the scene. Second, I am not 100% sure that Hitler was in the audience for this '42 Concert - Goebbels yes, Hitler, I am not so sure. I stand to be corrected. Best wishes, B
(1) Hitler was not in the audience. (2) After his defense of Hindemith in 1934 Furtwangler was stripped of all of his positions and only was permitted to return to public life after he had capitulated to the demands of the regime. He rationalized his subsequent craven behavior as a necessity to "save" German musical culture, but of course he was just as career-driven as he was idealistic. That story is well known (and I wrote a Masters thesis about it: "Der Fall Hindemith").
@@DavesClassicalGuide Dave, the debate about Furtwangler and his moral standing will continue until kingdom come. There can be no doubt that he added to the cultural prestige of the Third Reich; that's to his everlasting detriment. Each human being has an infinite value. Even if he only saved one human being from the abyss - and the testimony at hand is that he saved several - what does that say of his decision to remain? I don't know, I really don't. A higher power can sort it out, not me.
@@bernardohanlon3498 I think it's incumbent upon us to try to see these issues with clarity and not simply throw up our hands. Of course there are arguments for both sides, but the fact that he did some good does not absolve him of the bad, and neither has anything to do with how I judge him musically, which is on a case by case basis, one performance at a time. In any case, I have no problem sorting it out because I AM a higher power. Thanks for watching. ;-)
Yes, he had the BPO in 1922
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sometimes clarity is in short supply and one has to live with moral ambiguity. Now, your comment on this endeavour being a Concerto for Timpani was very acute and funny - well done. And it's true enough too, particularly in terms of older remasterings in circulation. That said, I am astounded by the difference that Pristine has made to this endeavour (I listened to it last night). Dave, I presume you are similarly dismissive of WF and the BP in Brahms' 4th from December 1943? To my antipodean ears, it is the greatest performance in existence. Best wishes, B
David, what do you think of Furtwangler’s vaunted Bruckner recordings?
Mostly not special.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I agree. He supposedly captured Bruckner’s introspective, prayerful soul in the Adagios, and so on. I found much of his interpretations disjointed and rather heavy handed in the Scherzos and Finales. You’ve really enlightened me on how Bruckner composed. Although I’ve loved Bruckner for decades now, I still wondered why he’d wind things down, ending in a full stop at times, then suddenly all hell breaks loose, and so on. I understand it better now, thanks to you.
I agree with all the facts of course but your opinions.. not so much. I think the German at this time, being Nazi occupied was a huge distraction for them, mind in the wrong place. I still think the German spirit and heart was still very whole regardless of the propaganda and all nasty violence their country encouraged. That being said, this is another great performance of the same incredible composer. I think regardless of ideas, if the heart and spirit is human then Beethoven will sound just the way he was meant to.
Sorry, but I think the above is just nonsense. It doesn't say a word about music, and the rest is fluff.
Very, very cool tie!!
I've listened to the 1951 Bayreuth Festival performance so many times I seem to dislike any other recording of the 9th. I'll have to listen to the 1942 performance. Once.
The 1951 Bayreuth isn't that great tbh. If you're Furtwangler's fan it's a fine performance, but it's neither a memorable oddity as the March 1942 version or a genius musical accomplishment as the Lucerne 1954 recording.
But make sure to listen to actual march recording and NOT the nazi 9th that is from april (its called this way as it was arranged as birthday present for hitler). The guy here is talking about the nazi 9th, which is historically interessting, but the actual superb interpretation is from march.
I have the August 1954 Performance. Not interested in anything he's done for the Nazi.
For me it's a matter of principle. I won't listen to a recording While millions of Jews were being murdered at the same time.
I was warned away from this recording (by you and by others) and, judging from the sound clip you used, it's a darned good thing I was warned! I also remember being burned by someone who insisted that one of the "old time" conductors (it might have even been Furtwangler, but I'm not sure) did the only Bruckner worth hearing. So I bought the recording and it sounded like it was recorded on an old cassette player from under the balcony seat. It soured me to "historical recordings" for quite a while.
By the way, I confess that I love it when a critic rips loose on something that deserves it ("I hated this move, I hated hated hated hated hated it! Hated it!" to give one prominent example). Thanks for the informative and enjoyable warning!
Not a comment, a question: could placement of microphones caused the apparent dominance of the timpani.? You're right, it's a racket.
Tempo shifting? I associate that with Furtwangler. EG the transition between the station and the allergy in his recording of the 4th, a recording that I love.
That's a d a g I o and a l l e g r o. My email generator plays tricks sometimes.
Sure, microphone placement had something to do with it, plus room acoustics, plus insensitive playing and conducting--the tempo shifting doesn't bother me at all. As you say, that's F, and it's often very exciting.
Actually, I’ve never heard this recording...for whatever reason. After your review, I still have no desire to hear it. Don’t want it. Don’t need it. I have so many great 9ths from which to choose.