I heard Celibidache live once when he and his Munich orchestra visited Hong Kong when I was in high school. He was too old to stand and he conducted sitting on a chair the whole evening. The sound the orchestra produced was truly amazing. It made the whole symphony hall resonated. I was surrounded with gorgeous sound and the experience was incredible. It is 10x better than the Hong Kong Philharmonic concerts I usually go to. People were criticizing the acoustics of Hong Kong Culture Center Symphony Hall back then. I think it is not the problem of the acoustics. It is simply because the orchestra is sub-par. I am listening to the Orfeo Celibidache box recently and enjoyed it so far. I am also half way through listening to the Erich Kleiber Decca box, and I enjoyed listening to the Celibidache box better than the Kleiber box. In my opinion, all the pieces in the Kleiber box are good but not the best, so why bother with the bad sound? With Celibidache you can at least always hear something different
I saw him live in 1986 with the Munich and no prejudice. It was a marvelous and unforgettable experience. Listening to recordings is, of course, a different matter (I still like the results, though)
The quality of sound that Celibidache got out of an orchestra was simply magical (and I experienced this at live concerts of the Curtis Orchestra, the Munich Phil, and the Schleswig-Holstein Festival Orchestra). That sound, free of non-musical tension, blended, balanced, and flowing, was impossibly beautiful. He made even the Scythian Suite sound radiantly beautiful. One can argue whether it is worth sacrificing other things to achieve that sound. But that is the deliberate choice he made. That sound absolutely cannot be captured on a radio broadcast, an analogue LP, or a CD. So the recording gives you the image of the sacrifices made for the sound without capturing the beauty of the sound itself. I seldom listen to his recordings because they cannot capture what he was really trying to do, and imitating what he does on the recordings (and especially the tempos) without the substance of creating that sound would be perverse. Now I have no credibility with random people reading this. Why should anybody take my word for it that there is a potential for beauty in sound that no microphone, amplifier, and speakers can successfully reproduce? In my defence, let me say I was not predisposed by temperament to believe such a thing until I heard it for myself. Unfortunately, that is no help to anyone baffled by these recordings, which really ought not even exist if there were real respect for the artist's wishes.
Any ideas regarding why the ideal sound supposedly does not translate?.. I am asking most seriously. Is it because the sound is just the function of the moment on our brain? Or something more scientific about the nature of purified sound that does not bother other musicians?
@@bigg2988 I have no idea, because I don't understand what anyone is talking about when they make that claim. Recorded sound never sounds like live sound. The claim that it does not translate, however, seems to me entirely personal and impressionistic.
@@bigg2988 I think the main thing is the lack of actual acoustical space. This is not unique to Celibidache, of course. For example, I never enjoyed listening to Erwartung until I heard it performed live at Music Hall in Cincinnati in about 2003 or so. What sounded jumbled from a speaker sounded so much better when it had space to spread out into. Also, recordings do a poor job of reproducing the high-frequency overtones that give sound its colour. And sound engineers often boost bass sound too much. Bass sound that is allowed to reverberate too much has overtones that can mask the colour of higher-pitched instruments. Microphone placement also has a huge impact on balances, and while the players are actually playing, they get no feedback from that to serve as their basis for adjustment. What they hear from each other in terms of balance is not necessarily what is going through the mikes. The ability of the sound engineer to adjust is very crude compared to musicians' ability to adjust to what they hear in real time. Anyway, I personally do not listen to recordings for enjoyment most of the time. I listen to them to learn. I go to concerts for enjoyment. There are, however, a few recordings I really enjoy listening to - I'd be a liar if I said otherwise.
@@DavesClassicalGuide My understanding is that he thought real music can only happen in real time and only when live. The musical experience can also vary depending on where one sits in the concert hall. He thought recorded music is just an image of the actual music itself, rather than it be real music. Just like a photograph, not even a recorded video of a person will match the actual experience of being physically present with someone. OTOH, I had heard Itzthak Perlman state how much he can appreciate music even through an old tiny transistor radio. We would all be deprived of the majority of what we listen to without the existence of recordings. However, I see the merit of Celibdache's argument. Also, quite many times I have heard musicians state that they feel an interaction with the audience during live concerts, subsequently, their musical expression changes, mostly to the better. When listening to a live recording, we are eavesdropping, rather than being part of the experience. Just my thoughts. I may have read the analogy to a photograph from Celibidache's son.
An artist deserves to be judged by his finest accomplishments. One of my favorite films is "Night of the Hunter," the only movie Charles Laughton ever directed. If he had directed another ten films, and if all ten were lousy, would "Night" be any less of a triumph? Of course not. Celi's Bruckner changed my life. I haven't much liked most of his performances of non-Bruckner works. What of it? I still count him among the greatest of the greats.
I don't. I think your opening statement is nonsense. An artist deserves to be judged by the totality of his or her achievements. If what you say were true, then everyone would be an equally "great" artist to the extent everyone has at least one great performance or effort to offer over the course of a lifetime.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Really, everyone has at least one great performance in their lifetime? Don't think that'd be true for most people by the echelon we're talking about here :)
I have mixed feelings about Celibidache. Many years ago, 2002-2003, while living in Boston, I awoke one early morning to the sound of music coming out of my old vintage clock radio, broadcast from public radio WGBH. It was really lovely. I was half asleep and didn’t know what it was. I emailed the station and the program people told me it was Tchaikovsky Sym 5 performed by Celibidache/Munich. It was the 2nd movement, which is so lovely. At the time I didn’t know this symphony yet, nor Celibidache; so my first impression was a good one; more than good - transcendent. I purchased his CDs of Tchaikovsky Sym No. 5 & 6, and do not regret it. They are gorgeous. Similarly I like his recordings with Munich of Brahms # 3 & 4. His early recordings 1946-1948 with Berlin Philharmonic, on a 2-disc historical reissue, have some interesting material, particularly the Leonore Overture #3, which was my happy introduction to this masterpiece, and the Prokofiev Symph #1 “Classical”. For me it was a wonderful experience. His performances from this period are much more lively and fresh. There is an interesting video release of him and Berlin 1946 playing the Egmont overture, apparently on a set which resembles the ruins of Berlin, with Celi’s long hair flowing back and forth during his gesticulations. I love the music but in historical perspective, don’t quite understand the use of the ruins as a set for the musicians, one can’t help but feel empathy for the people who died or suffered in the fighting. I find most of his Munich recordings, apart from the above Tchaikovsky & Brahms, (notwithstanding his Bruckner which gets some rave reviews but I have not listened to yet), to be tedious and uninteresting, particularly the Beethoven and Mozart symphonies, for which his slow, ponderous approach, is poorly suited. The LVB Pastoral symphony and Mozart’s No. 40 & 41 (I stopped after these) suffer greatly in these performances. It feels like the soul has been sucked out of the music. Overall, I owe a great debt to Celibidache, for some unique and beautiful listening experiences, but I cannot bring myself to enjoy most of his later work. I had a Celibadache “phase” when I thought he could do no wrong, but it is more complex now.
I keep imagining an encounter between Celibidache and Reginald Goodall. With apologies to Irving Berlin, "Anything you conduct, I conduct slower, I conduct anything slower than you."
Well... he was always saying that he doesn't hold the absolute truth in music and nobody else does in absence of the composer. The one trying to pass his own subjective opinions as "the truth" is just another idiot... that was in his own words. I like the fact that he left "something" for his critics too, even after his death. Well done Maestro!
Well, getting "a kick" out of Celi's interpretations would be a slow kick for sure. :) A (small) part of me wonders how much it had to do with the Buddhistic leanings of Celibidache, and how much of it we do not really "get", which the stomach-chanting monks probably do about the elevatory power of music. I found this sumptuous looking scarlet-and-black box once for 49 Euros (which is exactly 1Eur per CD) and thought it was worth taking a risk on a legend at the price of 3 new records. I still think the move was worth it. The conducting IS predominantly slow, according to the man's notorious beliefs ("so one sound does not interfere with another"), but not uniformly excruciatingly slow. Of course all those masses and Requiems I listened to so far are not captivating in the least, he even drives the light and beautiful Faure firmly into the ground. But overall there were some good surprises. I was expecting "the worst of Beethoven" here, but not that it really is (I mean, not stellar or revelatory, but I know worse). The reason probably being Celibidache is not cosmically slow here, some symphs only 5 to 10 minutes slower than, say the efficient Karajan - Celibidaches nemesis. :)) Of course, for Haydn and Mozart, the "searching" approach does not work at all - and Celi knew it, so only 2 discs of that. The Bruckner is at times beautiful, but more in 3rd or 7th symphonies for me than the lauded 4th (given, here NOT with Vienna!), 5th (the slow brass eating into my mind), or 9th. The Russians within this collection come off quite good, although the timings are really scary on paper - probably it is just that the "Russian soul" can support this type of wallowing in emotion. I like the quite lyrical (but not boring) overtures discs, and (amazingly) the Schubert 9 - the only thing Celi did of his - which in the contemplative runtime of 57 mins becomes a grand and majestic occasion - which might be what the composer intended, although it is in contradiction to the general view of him. The thing is, the music shows itself flexible enough! One thing to take away - to listen to Celibidache, one has to be in a certain mood. Not necessary to buy into all the philosophical ideas, since an exceptional piece of music ought to captivate without any intervention from conductors. But some things are interesting to hear, just like they are with most of those earlier podium chiefs who had the luxury of a long period with same musical corps to polish their ideas.
I basically had written him off - no need to hear anything that he conducted. Had a chance to hear him live in Boston with Munich Phil. I stood in back of the 2nd balcony at Symphony Hall, with the intent of walking out. Never did. You could tell that the orchestra had been rehearsed to an inch of their lives, the sound they produced was extraordinary. Yes, everything was very slow, and there's no way in hell I'd want to hear those pieces performed that way on a regular basis - Don Juan, Rhapsodie Espagnole, Pictures. But as a one off, it was amazing - go figure.
Not being very knowledgeable about conductors I can only say that being a favorite collaborator of Michelangeli must carry some merit. Their performances of the Emperor and Ravel concerto are extraordinary.
Just listened to his recording of La Symphonie Fantastique with the Munich Phil. It sounds to me as if it's a recording of four sectional rehearsals of an underfunded Youth Orchestra sightreading simultaneously in adjoining rooms (of which I have first-hand experience). And I can see what you mean by all accents being smoothed out into a mush of pointlessness. (You didn't say that precisely, but you know what I mean, Dave.) Those witches are trying their best to orgy but with at least one leg wedged under a rock it all went horribly wrong until the final few bars of (unwritten) accelerando.
His Scheherezade is just amazing. The second movement… the melody of the oboe is hanging from air, just amazing, and the crescendo of the finale… just amazing. BUT, most of the time I just don’t have the energy to listen to his suicidal tempi.
Thank you David for dealing with this box set. For my part, I think it's just a matter of taste; I hate Céli's beethovens, Mozart, and even bruckner in general but I find him great in Ravel's Bolero of the 80's, maybe because I like the powerful bolero with the powerful final collapse; or with Mussorgsky, or with Respighi and his I Pini della Via Appia with the Stuttgart Radio, and other dazzling. Like all conductors! This crazy Maestro, because he was, was capable of the worst but also the best, for my ear. And yet, even if I wouldn't put him on my podium, Céli was fascinating, hypnotic, and possessed an incredible charisma, an unbearable ego, a human being. It seems that KARAJAN would have said of him: "he is crazy, but what a conductor!" And ironically, I find that to be the best definition of CELIBIDACHE. Sincerely.
I saw Celibidache and the LSO in the late 1970s. His concerts had an incredible tension in that you often wondered if the music would end before it ground to a halt. Occasionally things went badly awry as at the end of Kodaly’s Dances from Galanta which added to the excitement. As you say the release of so many off air recordings confirms that outside the concert experience his performances were often just flat and slow.
Hi David, love the channel. I often hear you mention conductors either knowing or not knowing how to conduct sonata form. I must admit that I don't know how to listen for that. Is there a source that you recommend for me to read and learn about it? Or perhaps you would consider making a video about it? Thanks.
I have made videos on sonata form (see the music chats playlist), but how to hear if a conductor "gets" it or not is another matter. I will think about it. The problem is that I'd need to play long excerpts and I'd never be able to get permission from the labels.
In addition to the texture and balance of his performances, I think that Celibidache had this rather special way of maintaining tension and forward drive in his Bruckner symphonies, in spite of (or perhaps because of) his extremely slow tempi. I find myself sort of leaning forward in my chair as I listen, anticipating climaxes that almost always occur, it seems to me, at exactly the right time. Something of an exception, though, is the seventh. That's a little too slow, even for my 86-year-old ears; especially the second movement. Whether or not he was a genius, I can't say, but I think he certainly had a special relationship with Bruckner.
Celibidache is unparalleled as a conductor of Anton Bruckner -- those are some truly astounding performances. He understood that the greatest works of the Central European industrial modernist musicians did not follow a fully commercialized or industrialized time, but were an admixture of dynastic-agrarian time interspersed with peroids of frenetic industrial activity (Bruckner's famous "blocks" of sound, which seem disconnected at first, but are carefully constructed to cohere on a global level, very much like how the Hapsburg dynasty held together dozens of ethnicities and confessional identities).
I don't like much of his work but the first movement of the EMI Bruckner 8th is to my ear just magically intense and perfect (he can't rescue the terrible finale which I've never been convinced by in any performance) but that opening movement is intense and glowing.
I have just one question: did he conduct with normal tempi in concertos, and reserved his slow tempi for symphonic works? The only CD I own of his is the Dvorak concerto with Jacqueline du Pre in Stockholm 1967, on Teldec. They take about 45 minutes which appears to be the average for this piece. Maybe the soloist had enough clout to insist on normal speeds.
If you do everything slowly, you'll find some music, for which this approach works. But a conductor should find an attractive interpretation for music they do, whereas what Celibidache did, was the opposite - setting his interpretation first and then looking for music, for which his approach worked. The result is as inflexible as it gets. For me, he's one of the names to avoid. If I was a member of any conductor cult, then I was in a Karajan camp, but I've listened to much more ever since. I think the same would happen to anyone thinking that one conductor was above anyone else, at best, it can only be true for a few works.
I saw Celibidache and Munich do Bruckner 4 in Chicago in the late 80s. At that time I did not have the musical sophistication to understand everything he was trying to do, but I remeber being impressed with the meticulous care of the performance and the sort of fascination with sound and texture on both the podium and in the orchestra. At the end, I will never forget the approximately 15 minutes of applause from the crowd. However, lest you think it was all about the brilliance of the music, the main reason it happened was because Celibidache gave every single wind player an extended solo bow one at a time and the audience seemed to feel obligated to applaud. It struck me as a huge piece of narcissism, I am glad I was able to enjoy the performance in spite of it.
I have a mea culpa on this comment--I found the original Chicago Tribune review of the concert on April 16, 1989 and the program was actually Strauss, Ravel and Mussorgsky--I guess I associate Celibidache so much with Bruckner that I just did not remember the program right, but it must have been this concert since it was Celibidache's only appearance ever in Chicago. The reviewer also noted the endless curtain calls.
It’s interesting that in an era that has gotten so fast, even in old world music thanks to HIP practices which sometimes speed up baroque and early classical period music to seemingly bebop and punk rock tempos, that there have been some musicians who have gone to the opposite direction extreme and slowed down to such a degree. Celibidache, Giulini, later Bernstein, sometimes Barenboim (at the podium sometimes), and pianists such as Sokolov, Afanassiev, Pogorelich, Barenboim (at the piano sometimes).
Regarding your comment about his "mature" period vs his earlier "normal" conducting, he had stated that in his early years he did not make, or did not know how to make music. Such as he had made derogatory criticism about a number ofother conductors. He had training in philosophy, and seems like he created his own world of understanding what music is. Versus a professional music critic would take a broader view of understanding of what music is.
But what you sure DO get from it, is the almost perfect understanding from what serene but nearly static environment those sounds sprang. This is said with a slight shade of irony, 'cause having watched the film, it is certainly only for a niche inquisitive audience. What struck me the most in the filmed epizodes, was how much his conducting students seemed to fear Celibidache, almost to the point of looking paralyzed in his presence. Hmmm. Another interesting (and shorter) program I watched is about his rehearsals with the LSO (I think) in the early 80s - during one of his infrequent contracts outside of Germany. This was more dynamic.
@@Schlapphoo And like other members of the cult, you miss the point completely. The issue here is not whether he changed your life. It is whether the recordings are any good. Most are not. No one cares if you had a good time at a bunch of concerts. I've never NOT had a good time going to a concert, even when the performance was awful. The issue is whether they should waste money on junk. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
I think of a review for the Los Angeles Times when Celibidache brought over the Munich Philharmonic and performed Bruckner 4. One critic said that Bruckner had marked the finale “not too quickly”… “He needn’t have worried.”
You are quite right about some of the "personality cults" relating to specific conductors. Many classical music forums where these conductors (and classical music generally) are discussed defy belief. After a while, it becomes obvious that a lot of people posting in these forums are mentally ill or have other serious personality problems. You would think that classical music is one of "the great things about our civilization," but not if you read postings in these forums. Some of the videos of Celi rehearsing are cruel, bordering on serious abuse.
The advantage of acquiring music at a used CD store is you can purchase questionable discs at a discount. One day I came upon Celibidache conducting Bruckner's 6th, 9th & Mass along with Tchaikovsky's 5th and Debussy's La Mer/Iberia for $12.50 + tax. Some performances work better than others and my curiosity has been sated. I think I will stop when I am ahead.
Watching videos of him rehearse is agony. Lecturing, lecturing, blah, blah, blah… “cult conductor” indeed… He reminds me of the unbearable opera directors in Europe, who build an entire set design on one insight, and ruin the entire opera pounding home one single observation…
@@ppfuchs yes, though mostly to positive ends in his Bach. At worst, there's a rather petulant steak underlying some of his other recordings: his Chopin and Mozart for instance!
Two of his performances on youtube have really surprised me; partially because they're pieces I'd never imagine him doing in a month of Sundays but mainly because they are done superbly: the Schoenberg Orchestral Variations and the Tippett Ritual Dances from the Midsummer Marriage. Perhaps if he'd spent less time wallowing in Bruckner....................
Have you heard Maximianno Cobra, a hack who somehow got an orchestra and chorus to record his interpretation of Beethoven's Ninth? It is infamously bad, making Boehm's 1980 recording seem lively. Don't get a CD of it or his Beethoven symphony "cycle"-- that recording of the Ninth plus "recordings" of the others on string section samples. Just search on RUclips and be appalled.
Thank you. I have never heard many of his recordings. I recall the Olympic terror attack in Munich. A service to honor the victims was televised in which the Munich Philharmonic performed the Beethoven Eroica funeral march. Did Celibidache conduct that performance?
I appreciate your explanation of him being a chord rather than line conductor, and often dull performances. You are onto something, I never had seen it like that before. It has prompted me to look for an inherently wild and exciting composition conducted by Celibidache, to see if he can dull it out. Just finished listening to the New World Symphony. It sounds nothing like a Dvořák composition, however it is very serene and beautiful. To me it sounds more like a Viennese or German composition, rather than an East European music, and it loses the meaning of the composition. Regardless, I will listen to it again.
I experienced the Celibidache cult up close in Munich as a teen - a conglomerate of gents in traditional clothing, over-perfumed old biddies, and pompous men discussing their big diesel Mercedes, all swooning over their messiah. I might have been fifteen years old, but could already recognize BS when I heard it. The more so because by then the concerts were excruciatingly dull, not helped by the fact that the Munich Phil was hardly the best ensemble of the time. I particularly remember (this was later, I think) a glacial Dvorak 9th that had all remains of excitement ripped from its cold corpse. If that is "mystic genius" I will pass, thank you.
A frank and accurate assessment of the ultimate "cult" conductor. Several years ago I made the mistake of investing in EMI's mammoth Celi Box, prompted by my strong positive reaction to hearning his Munich Bruckner 4 & 6, which I regarded as nothing short of Divine Revelation. Well, of course it doesn't follow that if Celi can manage to reveal the depths of two Bruckner symphonies, then he can do the same for Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, et. al. So much for impulse buying; lesson learned. Now I can hardly fathom what I heard in Celi's Bruckner, though I will grant that his way with the coda in 4:IV is truly stunning. Otherwise, the slow tempos now tend to put me to sleep. Give me Jochum any day of the week in that symphony and Bruckner generally.
@@christthekingepiscopalchur2075 "rather fiery" indeed--that one's a real scorcher! It's with the Berlin Philharmonic, and was filmed in 1950 with the orchestra arrayed across what was left of their old stage, amidst the rubble of the bombed-out Philharmonie. I don't know a more thrilling performance. It could be found on a Warner/Teldec DVD entitled, "The Art of Conducting - Legendary Conductors Of A Golden Era".
@@richardfrankel6102 Good grief. I wonder how I ended up as the name of my employer. I must investigate. Yes, that's the performance. If I hadn't been so lazy, I would've looked it up.
Apropos cult conductors, it just occurred to me, Dave, that I never have heard you comment on the conductor Asahina. I have heard many wonderful Asahina recordings (Bruckner) , but some not so much (e.g. Beethoven symphonies -yawn.) . But he is definitely a cult type figure.
@DavesClassicalGuide luckily we can all have our own opinions! Maybe you should also pay attention about that what you’re saying is just your opinion or your impression ;)
No, actually what I say is objective fact and what everyone else says is just opinion, and the sooner you understand that the better your life will be.
Haha. Nice video David. I laugh because I jumped on the Celibadache bandwagon, when they brought out the Bruckner symphonies by him for example. I welcomed the very slow tempi at the time. Because I wanted to get as much "spirituality" from Bruckner as I could. So I buried myself in headphones for an hour or....ahem two. And listened to his Bruckner set. I actually liked it.... well for the most part....I actually thought his "4th" was very good.... that incredibly slow coda, (he struggled to control for some of the time). But it felt so much like a pilgrimage of a lengthy struggle through life, and we finally got home, with a few scars... But I then listened to Bruckner's 5th, and he applied the same thinking to that symphony...And it completely failed...so no... I've totally lost interest in him now...
@@janouglaeser8049 Wand BPO is probably the benchmark recording. I also like Karl Bohm and the VPO, if you can handle the less disciplined control. B5?. Still exploring the possibilities. Simply because I find this symphony difficult. My recording is the RCO with Chailly. I have listened to an old Ormandy/Phil recording in the past. Had a lovely full rich sound...
@@mr-wx3lv Indeed the Fifth is probably the most challenging among Bruckner's symphonies. If by any chance you give Jochum/Dresden a try do tell me whether you enjoyed it! Sawallisch's recording (Dave's favorite for the 5th) is also quite good; not as powerful as Jochum (no one is) but somewhat more organic.
@@janouglaeser8049 Hi. Well I gave them both a try (they're both on RUclips btw. So probably not the best representation) . They both seem a little slow and deliberate in the finale. I found the brass in the swallische version a little short of breath in that great coda. But Jochum, wow! Powerful, weighty and bassy. He puts the emphasis on that final coda alright. And I think that's the way to be with this symphony. I have to say he sounds a little Mahlerian in that coda. Which further cements the link between the two composers. But it is such a tough, tough symphony to pull off successfully. I shall keep listening until I "Get it" 🙂
A funny thing about Celibidache being a "chord guy" par excellence is that there's a COUNTERPOINT book by Markand Thakar which is almost entirely based on the teachings of... you guessed it... Sergiu Celibidache. It is an absolutely bizarre book, spending inordinate amount of times talking about "primordial lines" -- only specific kinds of lines which follow certain rules are apparently "primordial," one of those assertions said with more confidence than evidence (you could provide 50 counterexamples to their thesis by going through your score library for ten minutes). It is the very rare counterpoint book that focuses just as much on the performer as the composer -- an interesting idea, but as you can guess their suggestions are very much less than practical. It's definitely a window into Celibidache's general musical worldview. It talks a lot about "the highest spiritual beauty of music" in which the listener transcends time and space. He's very convinced that he's attaining it, the audience less so. "Mad without the genius" is a perfect description.
I actually helped translate that book into Czech for use by a teacher of counterpoint and theory at the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague. A primordial line is simply a line that sounds like the ur-line of a Schenker analysis - a line where there is nothing left to "reduce", in a sense. No sequences, no arpeggiations, nothing that would divide the line into parts. There's nothing mystical about it.
I hold Leopold Stokowski in high esteem for what he did live and recorded. He challenged engineers to present the best reproduced sound possible with exciting performances, correct or in his own vision. You knew the music he was playing despite often editorializing. He also performed many, many modern works. He was one of the great conductors. I probably have 40+ Stokowski recordings. The Celibidache I have heard (recorded only) also sounded okay but uneventful in the 1950s (standards) and bizarrely slow and unstructured in the 1970s. I don't think I am going to start collecting/listening to Celibidache. Thank you soooo much for letting me know what a kook he was. Music requires rhythm, even if it only one note. He apparently thought it only required sound, rhythm be damned!
For me, Celibidache is a bit of a mixed bag. Some of his recordings (especially the later ones) are unlistenably slow. His earlier recordings (the DG recordings) are much better in terms of tempi. I've always thought of him as the "Sergio Leone" of the conductor world...drawing out the slower parts, making them slower, but keeping the faster parts quick...at least in his mid-period. This sometimes works well (like his Tchaikovsky Romeo and Juliet Overture) and sometimes it's a bit of a mixed bag...like his Mussorgsky's Pictures where the promenades, Gnomus and Great Gate are 'tough to listen to' slow, but the Old Castle and the Ox & cart and hatched chickens are perfectly timed. His is definitely a unique voice/vision (ahem) and I want to hear everything he's done at least once. (Sometimes once is enough!!) It might be heaven, it might be hell, but it's never boring.
As you once said David 'you gotta have an acquired taste for this music'. Not all it's Bruckner is good (ex S7) as not al the rest of it's Munich recordings are bad!
I only once attended a concert conducted by Celidache and it was disappointing. His podium manner was eccentric - the only time I've seen a conductor use his feet as well as his hands though I'm not sure what the kicks were meant to indicate to the performers. Apparently he had been footballer when young. Dvořák Symphony 7 with LSO - very heavy and lumpy.
I love Celibidache’s Bruckner, others don’t, and neither camp is likely to ever convince the other. So my big question with Celi is: how and why did he become what he became? Somewhere, I have a recording of Prokofiev’s “Classical” that Celibidache made as a young man with Italian forces before he swore off the recording studio. The performance is, well, normal. I think Celibidache also recorded that work with Munich live and it’s three times as long, or at least it feels that way. Might be the longest Prokofiev #1 on record. This isn’t a mere case of an aging conductor inadvertently getting more mannered and slow. At some point, Celi totally changed his approach and injected with lumbering pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Perhaps the upcoming Malkovich film will enlighten us all.
My understanding of his style is based on his being a believer in Zen Buddhism, which is about being in the present moment which may explain why he didn’t believe in recordings. Each concert was a form of meditation for him.
Intrigued by which direction the announced film starring John Malkovich would take regarding the myth of Celibidache. Yet, knowing that the conductor's family will be involved, hard to expect irreverent disclosures. One thing to watch: Malkovich will REALLY have add on weight to portray Celi in his older days.
i have two beautiful recording with celibidache from some long time....the dvorak cello concerto with jacqueline du pré ( dgg),and the brahms violin concerto with ida haendel ( emi)i re listen this recording and i like...beatiful soloist beautiful orchestra....the tempo...? so is ok...no rubato anywere
Totally in synch with you on Celibidache. I believe his only worthy renditions are Bruckner's 4th and Debussy's La Mer and Iberia. I would also recommend his Ravel Daphnis & Chloé suite no. 2 but with the Orchestre National de France. Everything else sucks big time. In the end cult conductors become their worst enemies.
Not for no reason that secondhand music stores are stocked to the rafters with Celi! To his credit, he got some wonderful sounds from the Munich Phil, something even Kempe couldn't reliably achieve...
His type of personality always has a cult following. He is loved by the crazy music lovers living in their moms basement at 38. They all moved over to Theadorakis.
I agree with every word of this review. Celibidache was essentially a one trick pony and it wasn’t a very good trick at that. Most of what he did was intolerable. However, there is a live Prelude To The Afternoon of A Faun on RUclips that is as seductive and spellbinding as you could hope for. And his Bruckner 4th on EMI is sublime. So his approach could yield spectacular results but, unfortunately that was almost never the case.
Heard many of his concerts in the 80ies in Munich. Some (quite few actually ) were outstanding, best in my memory that Faure Requiem...and then some great Ravel and Debussy. Bruckner was mixed ( f-minor mass is admittedly fantastic), but the rest often unbearably dull and ponderous. Brahms,Schumann,Tschaikowsky...starved of oxygen. Worst of all: Bach and Haydn. Dead, lifeless,dull, a travesty. The devoted fan club around him was often Comedy Gold. I remember one thesis from these enlightened circles: "Yes, that may have sounded boring, but if it did then its the composition, not Celi. He only brought out what's in it" I rest my case and get my coat.
i think most of us heard Celibidache's Bruckner 4 and were blown away. Then we heard more and more of his Bruckner and other recordings and were left underwhelmed. What was the problem? Us or him? In time, you realize it was him.
You hit it on the head Dave. There does exists this idea in euro Germanic circles this notion as music as a pseudo religious philosophical rite of revalation. I've listened to a lot of celibidache. His Brahms is tepid, soft. His Bruckner other then a munich 4th and 6th, is slow soft rounded pudding. His Bruckner te deum and 3rd mass, hazy. Soft., Slow and meandering. If you want to hear Bruckner done well by a conductor with a long name, go with skrowaczewski. Paul
You are so right about all those later Celibidache performances, especially the ones with the Munich forces. They all sound like he just came off a manic episode and has now entered the depressive phase just as he picked up the baton to conduct. A shame, since some of the earlier performances issued with Italian orchestras who an exciting and dramatic talent. Especially the Mozart Great Mass with an Italian orchestra. wow! Of course I have long thought the Emperor Concerto with Michelangeli and Celi in Paris was possibly that greater ever. But that likely had more to do with Michelangeli.
In this I completely agree with you. Almost always the works of the hand of this director are a plumb. And to this is added the arrogance with which he contemptuously judges and criticizes other orchestra conductors. And if we compare his discography with that of those same directors, the Romanian comes out very badly!!!
I agree with you Dave Once you put the music into small squares (and the very slow tempo is also part of small squares) you loose the definitive line of energy . I studied with him short period With philosophy you can't make music. With music you can make philosophy . The absolute opposite is Markevich I also studied with him
If it wasn't for all of his recordings uploaded on RUclips, I never would have known. I grew up on the belief that he was one of the greats. And I as I started listening, I felt that he smoothed out so many parts, and didn't have enough drive in so many works (Beethoven 7 for example), that I found it odd. I slowly came to realize that he was over rated! So I'm glad that you and many others here feel the same way. There are a few of his recordings I do like, but on the whole, so many of the other greats have him beat in my favorite repertoire.
I like listening to crazy directors, if only to know why I like others. But Celi tests my patience. Glad to see that the community here would mostly understand.
Oh David, maybe you are too charitable in your assessment. All this incandescent, resplendent, transcendent intent and realization (well, not really) of what the man, for most of his artistic life, had in his mind's ear. Poppycock, rubbish and, dare I say, bull. All because the basic pulse for a work, and specific tempi in movements/passages, was increasingly rendered as molasses flows in the dead of a Deadwood winter. Requiring more rehearsal time (if an organization can afford it) to get balances and ensemble execution, phrasing, articulation etc. just so is commendable and the rewards are readily heard. The plodding, sometimes (often?) glacial tempos obviously can highlight the 'inner' voices and details in passages that tantalize and delight ears, live, that are used to hearing recordings of tangible impact (e.g. swifter, more powerful) that may not capture the details so well (we've seen his rehearsal footage of several works, no?) I contend that at some of the chosen tempos, he could have had a good amateur orchestra (if they could have handled the sarcasm/criticism in rehearsal), never mind the Munich Phil., reach his philosophical heights in musical rhetoric just as satisfyingly. Yet, all for naught if the results were, as you point out, simply boring.
B Bailey In this case, no. Either Celi was so obdurate re: his rehearsal tempi that they set like metal in his mind and thus were the same for live performances (good, no surprises for the orchestra) as well or he was an artist of saintly purpose with complete trust in his inspiration and thus practiced what he preached or, rather, vice versa.
@vitorferreira6062 I had them because they were Celi and had listened to them very few times anyway. I didn't go back to those recordings because I didn't feel like. This video only compounded my feelings. It's not as if I took Dave's words literally.
When Celibidache didn't get the Berlin Phil job that he felt he deserved, I think he decided that he was going to be the guy to out - Furtwaengler Furtwaengler. What we ended up with was a conductor with all of the worst qualities of Furtwaengler and few of the better ones.
@@christianwouters6764 if many recordings were indeed badly recorded (mostly live) , many studio ones were not bad at all for that period, at least not as much to make impossible to appreciate the performance and interpretation. As her tragic end made clear, she was far from being divine...truly human, fragile, oversensitive, with her defects and weaknesses....but on stage she was giving life to her characters and their feelings: love, hate, rage, despair....whatever. Callas' interpretations have the ability to deeply impress those who listen to them. Nothing is missing: the extraordinary vocal ability, the depth of the interpretation, the originality of the construction of the characters. She was a singer-actress who played a fundamental role in the development of opera. Franco Zeffirelli said it well: "there is a before and an after, AC Ante Callas and DC After Callas. Everything changed. After Callas nothing was the same as before". Quite an assessment, and I believe is right.
I heard Celibidache live once when he and his Munich orchestra visited Hong Kong when I was in high school. He was too old to stand and he conducted sitting on a chair the whole evening. The sound the orchestra produced was truly amazing. It made the whole symphony hall resonated. I was surrounded with gorgeous sound and the experience was incredible. It is 10x better than the Hong Kong Philharmonic concerts I usually go to. People were criticizing the acoustics of Hong Kong Culture Center Symphony Hall back then. I think it is not the problem of the acoustics. It is simply because the orchestra is sub-par. I am listening to the Orfeo Celibidache box recently and enjoyed it so far. I am also half way through listening to the Erich Kleiber Decca box, and I enjoyed listening to the Celibidache box better than the Kleiber box. In my opinion, all the pieces in the Kleiber box are good but not the best, so why bother with the bad sound? With Celibidache you can at least always hear something different
lucky you
I saw him live in 1986 with the Munich and no prejudice. It was a marvelous and unforgettable experience. Listening to recordings is, of course, a different matter (I still like the results, though)
The quality of sound that Celibidache got out of an orchestra was simply magical (and I experienced this at live concerts of the Curtis Orchestra, the Munich Phil, and the Schleswig-Holstein Festival Orchestra). That sound, free of non-musical tension, blended, balanced, and flowing, was impossibly beautiful. He made even the Scythian Suite sound radiantly beautiful. One can argue whether it is worth sacrificing other things to achieve that sound. But that is the deliberate choice he made. That sound absolutely cannot be captured on a radio broadcast, an analogue LP, or a CD. So the recording gives you the image of the sacrifices made for the sound without capturing the beauty of the sound itself.
I seldom listen to his recordings because they cannot capture what he was really trying to do, and imitating what he does on the recordings (and especially the tempos) without the substance of creating that sound would be perverse.
Now I have no credibility with random people reading this. Why should anybody take my word for it that there is a potential for beauty in sound that no microphone, amplifier, and speakers can successfully reproduce? In my defence, let me say I was not predisposed by temperament to believe such a thing until I heard it for myself. Unfortunately, that is no help to anyone baffled by these recordings, which really ought not even exist if there were real respect for the artist's wishes.
I heard him live too and I have to say that this "it can't be captured" stuff is pure bullshit. Sorry. It's captured well enough, or not.
Any ideas regarding why the ideal sound supposedly does not translate?.. I am asking most seriously. Is it because the sound is just the function of the moment on our brain? Or something more scientific about the nature of purified sound that does not bother other musicians?
@@bigg2988 I have no idea, because I don't understand what anyone is talking about when they make that claim. Recorded sound never sounds like live sound. The claim that it does not translate, however, seems to me entirely personal and impressionistic.
@@bigg2988 I think the main thing is the lack of actual acoustical space. This is not unique to Celibidache, of course. For example, I never enjoyed listening to Erwartung until I heard it performed live at Music Hall in Cincinnati in about 2003 or so. What sounded jumbled from a speaker sounded so much better when it had space to spread out into. Also, recordings do a poor job of reproducing the high-frequency overtones that give sound its colour. And sound engineers often boost bass sound too much. Bass sound that is allowed to reverberate too much has overtones that can mask the colour of higher-pitched instruments.
Microphone placement also has a huge impact on balances, and while the players are actually playing, they get no feedback from that to serve as their basis for adjustment. What they hear from each other in terms of balance is not necessarily what is going through the mikes. The ability of the sound engineer to adjust is very crude compared to musicians' ability to adjust to what they hear in real time.
Anyway, I personally do not listen to recordings for enjoyment most of the time. I listen to them to learn. I go to concerts for enjoyment. There are, however, a few recordings I really enjoy listening to - I'd be a liar if I said otherwise.
@@DavesClassicalGuide My understanding is that he thought real music can only happen in real time and only when live. The musical experience can also vary depending on where one sits in the concert hall. He thought recorded music is just an image of the actual music itself, rather than it be real music. Just like a photograph, not even a recorded video of a person will match the actual experience of being physically present with someone. OTOH, I had heard Itzthak Perlman state how much he can appreciate music even through an old tiny transistor radio. We would all be deprived of the majority of what we listen to without the existence of recordings. However, I see the merit of Celibdache's argument. Also, quite many times I have heard musicians state that they feel an interaction with the audience during live concerts, subsequently, their musical expression changes, mostly to the better. When listening to a live recording, we are eavesdropping, rather than being part of the experience. Just my thoughts. I may have read the analogy to a photograph
from Celibidache's son.
An artist deserves to be judged by his finest accomplishments. One of my favorite films is "Night of the Hunter," the only movie Charles Laughton ever directed. If he had directed another ten films, and if all ten were lousy, would "Night" be any less of a triumph? Of course not. Celi's Bruckner changed my life. I haven't much liked most of his performances of non-Bruckner works. What of it? I still count him among the greatest of the greats.
I don't. I think your opening statement is nonsense. An artist deserves to be judged by the totality of his or her achievements. If what you say were true, then everyone would be an equally "great" artist to the extent everyone has at least one great performance or effort to offer over the course of a lifetime.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Really, everyone has at least one great performance in their lifetime? Don't think that'd be true for most people by the echelon we're talking about here :)
I have mixed feelings about Celibidache. Many years ago, 2002-2003, while living in Boston, I awoke one early morning to the sound of music coming out of my old vintage clock radio, broadcast from public radio WGBH. It was really lovely. I was half asleep and didn’t know what it was. I emailed the station and the program people told me it was Tchaikovsky Sym 5 performed by Celibidache/Munich. It was the 2nd movement, which is so lovely. At the time I didn’t know this symphony yet, nor Celibidache; so my first impression was a good one; more than good - transcendent. I purchased his CDs of Tchaikovsky Sym No. 5 & 6, and do not regret it. They are gorgeous. Similarly I like his recordings with Munich of Brahms # 3 & 4. His early recordings 1946-1948 with Berlin Philharmonic, on a 2-disc historical reissue, have some interesting material, particularly the Leonore Overture #3, which was my happy introduction to this masterpiece, and the Prokofiev Symph #1 “Classical”. For me it was a wonderful experience. His performances from this period are much more lively and fresh. There is an interesting video release of him and Berlin 1946 playing the Egmont overture, apparently on a set which resembles the ruins of Berlin, with Celi’s long hair flowing back and forth during his gesticulations. I love the music but in historical perspective, don’t quite understand the use of the ruins as a set for the musicians, one can’t help but feel empathy for the people who died or suffered in the fighting. I find most of his Munich recordings, apart from the above Tchaikovsky & Brahms, (notwithstanding his Bruckner which gets some rave reviews but I have not listened to yet), to be tedious and uninteresting, particularly the Beethoven and Mozart symphonies, for which his slow, ponderous approach, is poorly suited. The LVB Pastoral symphony and Mozart’s No. 40 & 41 (I stopped after these) suffer greatly in these performances. It feels like the soul has been sucked out of the music. Overall, I owe a great debt to Celibidache, for some unique and beautiful listening experiences, but I cannot bring myself to enjoy most of his later work. I had a Celibadache “phase” when I thought he could do no wrong, but it is more complex now.
I keep imagining an encounter between Celibidache and Reginald Goodall. With apologies to Irving Berlin, "Anything you conduct, I conduct slower, I conduct anything slower than you."
Well... he was always saying that he doesn't hold the absolute truth in music and nobody else does in absence of the composer. The one trying to pass his own subjective opinions as "the truth" is just another idiot... that was in his own words. I like the fact that he left "something" for his critics too, even after his death. Well done Maestro!
For me Celibidache has a top 1. His recording of Bruckner's Fourth symphony is my benchmark but the rest of his output is self indulgent clap trap.
Interesting, but too slow. The Top 1 in Bruckner 4 for me is Wand/BPO.
Recomposed by Celibidache: Bruckner Symphony No. 4. As New Age Chill Out Trance music nothing better.
So, you heard all the rest to make such a bold statement? Making such generalization makes you seem self-indulgent.
Well, getting "a kick" out of Celi's interpretations would be a slow kick for sure. :) A (small) part of me wonders how much it had to do with the Buddhistic leanings of Celibidache, and how much of it we do not really "get", which the stomach-chanting monks probably do about the elevatory power of music.
I found this sumptuous looking scarlet-and-black box once for 49 Euros (which is exactly 1Eur per CD) and thought it was worth taking a risk on a legend at the price of 3 new records. I still think the move was worth it.
The conducting IS predominantly slow, according to the man's notorious beliefs ("so one sound does not interfere with another"), but not uniformly excruciatingly slow. Of course all those masses and Requiems I listened to so far are not captivating in the least, he even drives the light and beautiful Faure firmly into the ground. But overall there were some good surprises. I was expecting "the worst of Beethoven" here, but not that it really is (I mean, not stellar or revelatory, but I know worse). The reason probably being Celibidache is not cosmically slow here, some symphs only 5 to 10 minutes slower than, say the efficient Karajan - Celibidaches nemesis. :)) Of course, for Haydn and Mozart, the "searching" approach does not work at all - and Celi knew it, so only 2 discs of that. The Bruckner is at times beautiful, but more in 3rd or 7th symphonies for me than the lauded 4th (given, here NOT with Vienna!), 5th (the slow brass eating into my mind), or 9th. The Russians within this collection come off quite good, although the timings are really scary on paper - probably it is just that the "Russian soul" can support this type of wallowing in emotion. I like the quite lyrical (but not boring) overtures discs, and (amazingly) the Schubert 9 - the only thing Celi did of his - which in the contemplative runtime of 57 mins becomes a grand and majestic occasion - which might be what the composer intended, although it is in contradiction to the general view of him. The thing is, the music shows itself flexible enough!
One thing to take away - to listen to Celibidache, one has to be in a certain mood. Not necessary to buy into all the philosophical ideas, since an exceptional piece of music ought to captivate without any intervention from conductors. But some things are interesting to hear, just like they are with most of those earlier podium chiefs who had the luxury of a long period with same musical corps to polish their ideas.
I basically had written him off - no need to hear anything that he conducted. Had a chance to hear him live in Boston with Munich Phil. I stood in back of the 2nd balcony at Symphony Hall, with the intent of walking out. Never did. You could tell that the orchestra had been rehearsed to an inch of their lives, the sound they produced was extraordinary. Yes, everything was very slow, and there's no way in hell I'd want to hear those pieces performed that way on a regular basis - Don Juan, Rhapsodie Espagnole, Pictures. But as a one off, it was amazing - go figure.
Not being very knowledgeable about conductors I can only say that being a favorite collaborator of Michelangeli must carry some merit. Their performances of the Emperor and Ravel concerto are extraordinary.
No, it doesn't carry any merit at all.
I agree re: the Ravel. So beautiful
Just listened to his recording of La Symphonie Fantastique with the Munich Phil. It sounds to me as if it's a recording of four sectional rehearsals of an underfunded Youth Orchestra sightreading simultaneously in adjoining rooms (of which I have first-hand experience). And I can see what you mean by all accents being smoothed out into a mush of pointlessness. (You didn't say that precisely, but you know what I mean, Dave.) Those witches are trying their best to orgy but with at least one leg wedged under a rock it all went horribly wrong until the final few bars of (unwritten) accelerando.
His Scheherezade is just amazing. The second movement… the melody of the oboe is hanging from air, just amazing, and the crescendo of the finale… just amazing. BUT, most of the time I just don’t have the energy to listen to his suicidal tempi.
Exactly. Great, even revelatory moments, but it's misery getting there.
Thank you David for dealing with this box set.
For my part, I think it's just a matter of taste; I hate Céli's beethovens, Mozart, and even bruckner in general but I find him great in Ravel's Bolero of the 80's, maybe because I like the powerful bolero with the powerful final collapse; or with Mussorgsky, or with Respighi and his I Pini della Via Appia with the Stuttgart Radio, and other dazzling. Like all conductors!
This crazy Maestro, because he was, was capable of the worst but also the best, for my ear.
And yet, even if I wouldn't put him on my podium, Céli was fascinating, hypnotic, and possessed an incredible charisma, an unbearable ego, a human being.
It seems that KARAJAN would have said of him: "he is crazy, but what a conductor!"
And ironically, I find that to be the best definition of CELIBIDACHE.
Sincerely.
I saw Celibidache and the LSO in the late 1970s. His concerts had an incredible tension in that you often wondered if the music would end before it ground to a halt. Occasionally things went badly awry as at the end of Kodaly’s Dances from Galanta which added to the excitement. As you say the release of so many off air recordings confirms that outside the concert experience his performances were often just flat and slow.
Hi David, love the channel. I often hear you mention conductors either knowing or not knowing how to conduct sonata form. I must admit that I don't know how to listen for that. Is there a source that you recommend for me to read and learn about it? Or perhaps you would consider making a video about it? Thanks.
I have made videos on sonata form (see the music chats playlist), but how to hear if a conductor "gets" it or not is another matter. I will think about it. The problem is that I'd need to play long excerpts and I'd never be able to get permission from the labels.
Thanks. I will check the playlist.
In addition to the texture and balance of his performances, I think that Celibidache had this rather special way of maintaining tension and forward drive in his Bruckner symphonies, in spite of (or perhaps because of) his extremely slow tempi. I find myself sort of leaning forward in my chair as I listen, anticipating climaxes that almost always occur, it seems to me, at exactly the right time. Something of an exception, though, is the seventh. That's a little too slow, even for my 86-year-old ears; especially the second movement. Whether or not he was a genius, I can't say, but I think he certainly had a special relationship with Bruckner.
No one would dispute that.
Celibidache is unparalleled as a conductor of Anton Bruckner -- those are some truly astounding performances. He understood that the greatest works of the Central European industrial modernist musicians did not follow a fully commercialized or industrialized time, but were an admixture of dynastic-agrarian time interspersed with peroids of frenetic industrial activity (Bruckner's famous "blocks" of sound, which seem disconnected at first, but are carefully constructed to cohere on a global level, very much like how the Hapsburg dynasty held together dozens of ethnicities and confessional identities).
Oh dear. I hate to burst your bubble, but it's just music. Please don't talk nonsense.
I don't like much of his work but the first movement of the EMI Bruckner 8th is to my ear just magically intense and perfect (he can't rescue the terrible finale which I've never been convinced by in any performance) but that opening movement is intense and glowing.
I have just one question: did he conduct with normal tempi in concertos, and reserved his slow tempi for symphonic works? The only CD I own of his is the Dvorak concerto with Jacqueline du Pre in Stockholm 1967, on Teldec. They take about 45 minutes which appears to be the average for this piece. Maybe the soloist had enough clout to insist on normal speeds.
Can I just say that the thumbnail of this video is absolutely amazing.
If you do everything slowly, you'll find some music, for which this approach works. But a conductor should find an attractive interpretation for music they do, whereas what Celibidache did, was the opposite - setting his interpretation first and then looking for music, for which his approach worked. The result is as inflexible as it gets. For me, he's one of the names to avoid. If I was a member of any conductor cult, then I was in a Karajan camp, but I've listened to much more ever since. I think the same would happen to anyone thinking that one conductor was above anyone else, at best, it can only be true for a few works.
I saw Celibidache and Munich do Bruckner 4 in Chicago in the late 80s. At that time I did not have the musical sophistication to understand everything he was trying to do, but I remeber being impressed with the meticulous care of the performance and the sort of fascination with sound and texture on both the podium and in the orchestra. At the end, I will never forget the approximately 15 minutes of applause from the crowd. However, lest you think it was all about the brilliance of the music, the main reason it happened was because Celibidache gave every single wind player an extended solo bow one at a time and the audience seemed to feel obligated to applaud. It struck me as a huge piece of narcissism, I am glad I was able to enjoy the performance in spite of it.
I have a mea culpa on this comment--I found the original Chicago Tribune review of the concert on April 16, 1989 and the program was actually Strauss, Ravel and Mussorgsky--I guess I associate Celibidache so much with Bruckner that I just did not remember the program right, but it must have been this concert since it was Celibidache's only appearance ever in Chicago. The reviewer also noted the endless curtain calls.
It’s interesting that in an era that has gotten so fast, even in old world music thanks to HIP practices which sometimes speed up baroque and early classical period music to seemingly bebop and punk rock tempos, that there have been some musicians who have gone to the opposite direction extreme and slowed down to such a degree. Celibidache, Giulini, later Bernstein, sometimes Barenboim (at the podium sometimes), and pianists such as Sokolov, Afanassiev, Pogorelich, Barenboim (at the piano sometimes).
Regarding your comment about his "mature" period vs his earlier "normal" conducting, he had stated that in his early years he did not make, or did not know how to make music. Such as he had made derogatory criticism about a number ofother conductors. He had training in philosophy, and seems like he created his own world of understanding what music is. Versus a professional music critic would take a broader view of understanding of what music is.
If you think time stands still during some of his recordings, try the film Le jardin de Celibidache / Celibidache's Garden...
But what you sure DO get from it, is the almost perfect understanding from what serene but nearly static environment those sounds sprang. This is said with a slight shade of irony, 'cause having watched the film, it is certainly only for a niche inquisitive audience. What struck me the most in the filmed epizodes, was how much his conducting students seemed to fear Celibidache, almost to the point of looking paralyzed in his presence. Hmmm.
Another interesting (and shorter) program I watched is about his rehearsals with the LSO (I think) in the early 80s - during one of his infrequent contracts outside of Germany. This was more dynamic.
I could never understand this cult. So many other wonderful artists to listen to.
I like celibidache. But it seems i am the only one here. 😅
I like him too. It's just his conducting that sucks. Hehe.
You are not alone. I heard every program in Munich 1990 to 1996 and it changed my life. You see, I'm hopelessly part of "the cult". ;-)
@@Schlapphoo And like other members of the cult, you miss the point completely. The issue here is not whether he changed your life. It is whether the recordings are any good. Most are not. No one cares if you had a good time at a bunch of concerts. I've never NOT had a good time going to a concert, even when the performance was awful. The issue is whether they should waste money on junk. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Celibidache conducted one of the best performance of Tschaikovsky‘s „Pathetique“. Everyone who has ears, hears that he was a extraordinary musician.
I think of a review for the Los Angeles Times when Celibidache brought over the Munich Philharmonic and performed Bruckner 4. One critic said that Bruckner had marked the finale “not too quickly”… “He needn’t have worried.”
You are quite right about some of the "personality cults" relating to specific conductors. Many classical music forums where these conductors (and classical music generally) are discussed defy belief. After a while, it becomes obvious that a lot of people posting in these forums are mentally ill or have other serious personality problems. You would think that classical music is one of "the great things about our civilization," but not if you read postings in these forums. Some of the videos of Celi rehearsing are cruel, bordering on serious abuse.
The advantage of acquiring music at a used CD store is you can purchase questionable discs at a discount. One day I came upon Celibidache conducting Bruckner's 6th, 9th & Mass along with Tchaikovsky's 5th and Debussy's La Mer/Iberia for $12.50 + tax. Some performances work better than others and my curiosity has been sated. I think I will stop when I am ahead.
He looks made of perfume though, doesn't he! Ha! Not of the Stokowski brand, I hasten to add! Thx for this enjoyable Talk, Dave.
Watching videos of him rehearse is agony. Lecturing, lecturing, blah, blah, blah… “cult conductor” indeed… He reminds me of the unbearable opera directors in Europe, who build an entire set design on one insight, and ruin the entire opera pounding home one single observation…
“a musical vivisection , like some of Gould’s Beethoven” very well said :)
Perfect way to describe Gould's Beethoven, and perhaps his Bach too in some ways.
@@ppfuchs yes, though mostly to positive ends in his Bach. At worst, there's a rather petulant steak underlying some of his other recordings: his Chopin and Mozart for instance!
Two of his performances on youtube have really surprised me; partially because they're pieces I'd never imagine him doing in a month of Sundays but mainly because they are done superbly: the Schoenberg Orchestral Variations and the Tippett Ritual Dances from the Midsummer Marriage. Perhaps if he'd spent less time wallowing in Bruckner....................
That Schoenberg performance is truly remarkable, and there aren't many things that are harder to do.
Have you heard Maximianno Cobra, a hack who somehow got an orchestra and chorus to record his interpretation of Beethoven's Ninth? It is infamously bad, making Boehm's 1980 recording seem lively. Don't get a CD of it or his Beethoven symphony "cycle"-- that recording of the Ninth plus "recordings" of the others on string section samples. Just search on RUclips and be appalled.
Yes, he has been discussed several times already.
Thank you. I have never heard many of his recordings. I recall the Olympic terror attack in Munich. A service to honor the victims was televised in which the Munich Philharmonic performed the Beethoven Eroica funeral march. Did Celibidache conduct that performance?
At this time Rudolf Kempe was chief conductor in Munich.
The Philharmonic was conducted by Rudolph Kempe for this very sad performance.
I tried a few of his bruckner's but never felt the need to get more. I found the finale to the sixth weird.
I appreciate your explanation of him being a chord rather than line conductor, and often dull performances. You are onto something, I never had seen it like that before. It has prompted me to look for an inherently wild and exciting composition conducted by Celibidache, to see if he can dull it out. Just finished listening to the New World Symphony. It sounds nothing like a Dvořák composition, however it is very serene and beautiful. To me it sounds more like a Viennese or German composition, rather than an East European music, and it loses the meaning of the composition. Regardless, I will listen to it again.
No top 10. Very funny.
A few "revelatory" performances does not a genius make. But, I have to say that his very slow tempo for the coda of Bruckner's 8th, works for me.
I experienced the Celibidache cult up close in Munich as a teen - a conglomerate of gents in traditional clothing, over-perfumed old biddies, and pompous men discussing their big diesel Mercedes, all swooning over their messiah. I might have been fifteen years old, but could already recognize BS when I heard it. The more so because by then the concerts were excruciatingly dull, not helped by the fact that the Munich Phil was hardly the best ensemble of the time. I particularly remember (this was later, I think) a glacial Dvorak 9th that had all remains of excitement ripped from its cold corpse. If that is "mystic genius" I will pass, thank you.
Celibidache s slowish tempos I found were self indulgent and drove me crazy!
You're mad and he's a genius😂
A frank and accurate assessment of the ultimate "cult" conductor. Several years ago I made the mistake of investing in EMI's mammoth Celi Box, prompted by my strong positive reaction to hearning his Munich Bruckner 4 & 6, which I regarded as nothing short of Divine Revelation. Well, of course it doesn't follow that if Celi can manage to reveal the depths of two Bruckner symphonies, then he can do the same for Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, et. al. So much for impulse buying; lesson learned. Now I can hardly fathom what I heard in Celi's Bruckner, though I will grant that his way with the coda in 4:IV is truly stunning. Otherwise, the slow tempos now tend to put me to sleep. Give me Jochum any day of the week in that symphony and Bruckner generally.
Agreed. I've only really liked one performance of his, and that's Bruckner's 6th.
For me, the one--and only one--I've liked is a rather fiery Egmont overture on RUclips, when Celibidache was young. And after that.... Well.
@@christthekingepiscopalchur2075 "rather fiery" indeed--that one's a real scorcher! It's with the Berlin Philharmonic, and was filmed in 1950 with the orchestra arrayed across what was left of their old stage, amidst the rubble of the bombed-out Philharmonie. I don't know a more thrilling performance.
It could be found on a Warner/Teldec DVD entitled, "The Art of Conducting - Legendary Conductors Of A Golden Era".
@@richardfrankel6102 Good grief. I wonder how I ended up as the name of my employer. I must investigate. Yes, that's the performance. If I hadn't been so lazy, I would've looked it up.
La Mer and the Maestro..wow!
Apropos cult conductors, it just occurred to me, Dave, that I never have heard you comment on the conductor Asahina. I have heard many wonderful Asahina recordings (Bruckner) , but some not so much (e.g. Beethoven symphonies -yawn.) . But he is definitely a cult type figure.
Yes, he is. A big fish in a small pond. I find him irrelevant.
@DavesClassicalGuide
luckily we can all have our own opinions! Maybe you should also pay attention about that what you’re saying is just your opinion or your impression ;)
No, actually what I say is objective fact and what everyone else says is just opinion, and the sooner you understand that the better your life will be.
Haha. Nice video David. I laugh because I jumped on the Celibadache bandwagon, when they brought out the Bruckner symphonies by him for example. I welcomed the very slow tempi at the time. Because I wanted to get as much "spirituality" from Bruckner as I could. So I buried myself in headphones for an hour or....ahem two. And listened to his Bruckner set. I actually liked it.... well for the most part....I actually thought his "4th" was very good.... that incredibly slow coda, (he struggled to control for some of the time). But it felt so much like a pilgrimage of a lengthy struggle through life, and we finally got home, with a few scars...
But I then listened to Bruckner's 5th, and he applied the same thinking to that symphony...And it completely failed...so no... I've totally lost interest in him now...
Just out of curiosity, which are your favourites for Bruckner 4 and 5? Mine are Wand/BPO and Jochum/Dresden 🤗
@@janouglaeser8049 Wand BPO is probably the benchmark recording. I also like Karl Bohm and the VPO, if you can handle the less disciplined control. B5?. Still exploring the possibilities. Simply because I find this symphony difficult. My recording is the RCO with Chailly. I have listened to an old Ormandy/Phil recording in the past. Had a lovely full rich sound...
@@mr-wx3lv Indeed the Fifth is probably the most challenging among Bruckner's symphonies. If by any chance you give Jochum/Dresden a try do tell me whether you enjoyed it!
Sawallisch's recording (Dave's favorite for the 5th) is also quite good; not as powerful as Jochum (no one is) but somewhat more organic.
@@janouglaeser8049 Hi. Well I gave them both a try (they're both on RUclips btw. So probably not the best representation) . They both seem a little slow and deliberate in the finale. I found the brass in the swallische version a little short of breath in that great coda. But Jochum, wow! Powerful, weighty and bassy. He puts the emphasis on that final coda alright. And I think that's the way to be with this symphony. I have to say he sounds a little Mahlerian in that coda. Which further cements the link between the two composers. But it is such a tough, tough symphony to pull off successfully. I shall keep listening until I "Get it" 🙂
In addition to the Fourth, I love the first movement of the Ninth on the EMI recording.
A funny thing about Celibidache being a "chord guy" par excellence is that there's a COUNTERPOINT book by Markand Thakar which is almost entirely based on the teachings of... you guessed it... Sergiu Celibidache.
It is an absolutely bizarre book, spending inordinate amount of times talking about "primordial lines" -- only specific kinds of lines which follow certain rules are apparently "primordial," one of those assertions said with more confidence than evidence (you could provide 50 counterexamples to their thesis by going through your score library for ten minutes). It is the very rare counterpoint book that focuses just as much on the performer as the composer -- an interesting idea, but as you can guess their suggestions are very much less than practical.
It's definitely a window into Celibidache's general musical worldview. It talks a lot about "the highest spiritual beauty of music" in which the listener transcends time and space. He's very convinced that he's attaining it, the audience less so. "Mad without the genius" is a perfect description.
I actually helped translate that book into Czech for use by a teacher of counterpoint and theory at the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague.
A primordial line is simply a line that sounds like the ur-line of a Schenker analysis - a line where there is nothing left to "reduce", in a sense. No sequences, no arpeggiations, nothing that would divide the line into parts. There's nothing mystical about it.
I hold Leopold Stokowski in high esteem for what he did live and recorded. He challenged engineers to present the best reproduced sound possible with exciting performances, correct or in his own vision. You knew the music he was playing despite often editorializing. He also performed many, many modern works. He was one of the great conductors. I probably have 40+ Stokowski recordings. The Celibidache I have heard (recorded only) also sounded okay but uneventful in the 1950s (standards) and bizarrely slow and unstructured in the 1970s. I don't think I am going to start collecting/listening to Celibidache. Thank you soooo much for letting me know what a kook he was. Music requires rhythm, even if it only one note. He apparently thought it only required sound, rhythm be damned!
Musical phenomenology
For me, Celibidache is a bit of a mixed bag. Some of his recordings (especially the later ones) are unlistenably slow. His earlier recordings (the DG recordings) are much better in terms of tempi. I've always thought of him as the "Sergio Leone" of the conductor world...drawing out the slower parts, making them slower, but keeping the faster parts quick...at least in his mid-period. This sometimes works well (like his Tchaikovsky Romeo and Juliet Overture) and sometimes it's a bit of a mixed bag...like his Mussorgsky's Pictures where the promenades, Gnomus and Great Gate are 'tough to listen to' slow, but the Old Castle and the Ox & cart and hatched chickens are perfectly timed. His is definitely a unique voice/vision (ahem) and I want to hear everything he's done at least once. (Sometimes once is enough!!) It might be heaven, it might be hell, but it's never boring.
Well, I think it's often boring, but I agree that there's some amazingly great stuff too.
I don't understand why you are so down on Celibadache. I always found his work to be beautiful...
Then you should enjoy it accordingly.
As you once said David 'you gotta have an acquired taste for this music'. Not all it's Bruckner is good (ex S7) as not al the rest of it's Munich recordings are bad!
Like I said. But most of them are pretty mediocre.
finally, a fair review of the mystical beast.
Brilliant speech
I only once attended a concert conducted by Celidache and it was disappointing. His podium manner was eccentric - the only time I've seen a conductor use his feet as well as his hands though I'm not sure what the kicks were meant to indicate to the performers. Apparently he had been footballer when young. Dvořák Symphony 7 with LSO - very heavy and lumpy.
I love Celibidache’s Bruckner, others don’t, and neither camp is likely to ever convince the other. So my big question with Celi is: how and why did he become what he became? Somewhere, I have a recording of Prokofiev’s “Classical” that Celibidache made as a young man with Italian forces before he swore off the recording studio. The performance is, well, normal. I think Celibidache also recorded that work with Munich live and it’s three times as long, or at least it feels that way. Might be the longest Prokofiev #1 on record. This isn’t a mere case of an aging conductor inadvertently getting more mannered and slow. At some point, Celi totally changed his approach and injected with lumbering pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Perhaps the upcoming Malkovich film will enlighten us all.
My understanding of his style is based on his being a believer in Zen Buddhism, which is about being in the present moment which may explain why he didn’t believe in recordings. Each concert was a form of meditation for him.
Intrigued by which direction the announced film starring John Malkovich would take regarding the myth of Celibidache. Yet, knowing that the conductor's family will be involved, hard to expect irreverent disclosures. One thing to watch: Malkovich will REALLY have add on weight to portray Celi in his older days.
@@bigg2988I imagine a fat suit, or whatever the politically correct name for that might be these days, will be involved.
@@bigg2988 It sounds like a popcorn movie for sure. Can't wait. 😃
i have two beautiful recording with celibidache from some long time....the dvorak cello concerto with jacqueline du pré ( dgg),and the brahms violin concerto with ida haendel ( emi)i re listen this recording and i like...beatiful soloist beautiful orchestra....the tempo...? so is ok...no rubato anywere
The Dvorak is terrible, but the Brahms is OK.
He speaks very highly of you.
As well he should.
at length and in sanskrit@@DavesClassicalGuide
Totally in synch with you on Celibidache. I believe his only worthy renditions are Bruckner's 4th and Debussy's La Mer and Iberia. I would also recommend his Ravel Daphnis & Chloé suite no. 2 but with the Orchestre National de France. Everything else sucks big time. In the end cult conductors become their worst enemies.
Not for no reason that secondhand music stores are stocked to the rafters with Celi! To his credit, he got some wonderful sounds from the Munich Phil, something even Kempe couldn't reliably achieve...
His type of personality always has a cult following. He is loved by the crazy music lovers living in their moms basement at 38. They all moved over to Theadorakis.
I agree with every word of this review. Celibidache was essentially a one trick pony and it wasn’t a very good trick at that. Most of what he did was intolerable. However, there is a live Prelude To The Afternoon of A Faun on RUclips that is as seductive and spellbinding as you could hope for. And his Bruckner 4th on EMI is sublime. So his approach could yield spectacular results but, unfortunately that was almost never the case.
Heard many of his concerts in the 80ies in Munich. Some (quite few actually ) were outstanding, best in my memory that Faure Requiem...and then some great Ravel and Debussy. Bruckner was mixed ( f-minor mass is admittedly fantastic), but the rest often unbearably dull and ponderous. Brahms,Schumann,Tschaikowsky...starved of oxygen.
Worst of all: Bach and Haydn. Dead, lifeless,dull, a travesty.
The devoted fan club around him was often Comedy Gold.
I remember one thesis from these enlightened circles:
"Yes, that may have sounded boring, but if it did then its the composition, not Celi. He only brought out what's in it"
I rest my case and get my coat.
i think most of us heard Celibidache's Bruckner 4 and were blown away. Then we heard more and more of his Bruckner and other recordings and were left underwhelmed. What was the problem? Us or him? In time, you realize it was him.
You hit it on the head Dave. There does exists this idea in euro Germanic circles this notion as music as a pseudo religious philosophical rite of revalation. I've listened to a lot of celibidache. His Brahms is tepid, soft. His Bruckner other then a munich 4th and 6th, is slow soft rounded pudding. His Bruckner te deum and 3rd mass, hazy. Soft., Slow and meandering. If you want to hear Bruckner done well by a conductor with a long name, go with skrowaczewski.
Paul
You are so right about all those later Celibidache performances, especially the ones with the Munich forces. They all sound like he just came off a manic episode and has now entered the depressive phase just as he picked up the baton to conduct. A shame, since some of the earlier performances issued with Italian orchestras who an exciting and dramatic talent. Especially the Mozart Great Mass with an Italian orchestra. wow! Of course I have long thought the Emperor Concerto with Michelangeli and Celi in Paris was possibly that greater ever. But that likely had more to do with Michelangeli.
In this I completely agree with you. Almost always the works of the hand of this director are a plumb. And to this is added the arrogance with which he contemptuously judges and criticizes other orchestra conductors. And if we compare his discography with that of those same directors, the Romanian comes out very badly!!!
I agree with you Dave
Once you put the music into small squares (and the very slow tempo is also part of small squares) you loose the definitive line of energy . I studied with him short period
With philosophy you can't make music. With music you can make philosophy . The absolute opposite is Markevich I also studied with him
If it wasn't for all of his recordings uploaded on RUclips, I never would have known. I grew up on the belief that he was one of the greats. And I as I started listening, I felt that he smoothed out so many parts, and didn't have enough drive in so many works (Beethoven 7 for example), that I found it odd. I slowly came to realize that he was over rated! So I'm glad that you and many others here feel the same way. There are a few of his recordings I do like, but on the whole, so many of the other greats have him beat in my favorite repertoire.
I like listening to crazy directors, if only to know why I like others. But Celi tests my patience. Glad to see that the community here would mostly understand.
So am I!
Oh David, maybe you are too charitable in your assessment. All this incandescent, resplendent, transcendent intent and realization (well, not really) of what the man, for most of his artistic life, had in his mind's ear. Poppycock, rubbish and, dare I say, bull. All because the basic pulse for a work, and specific tempi in movements/passages, was increasingly rendered as molasses flows in the dead of a Deadwood winter.
Requiring more rehearsal time (if an organization can afford it) to get balances and ensemble execution, phrasing, articulation etc. just so is commendable and the rewards are readily heard. The plodding, sometimes (often?) glacial tempos obviously can highlight the 'inner' voices and details in passages that tantalize and delight ears, live, that are used to hearing recordings of tangible impact (e.g. swifter, more powerful) that may not capture the details so well (we've seen his rehearsal footage of several works, no?) I contend that at some of the chosen tempos, he could have had a good amateur orchestra (if they could have handled the sarcasm/criticism in rehearsal), never mind the Munich Phil., reach his philosophical heights in musical rhetoric just as satisfyingly. Yet, all for naught if the results were, as you point out, simply boring.
Isn't that what is generally known as rehearsal tempos? Never meant for actual concert use.
B Bailey In this case, no. Either Celi was so obdurate re: his rehearsal tempi that they set like metal in his mind and thus were the same for live performances (good, no surprises for the orchestra) as well or he was an artist of saintly purpose with complete trust in his inspiration and thus practiced what he preached or, rather, vice versa.
Believe me, most of what I had of Celibidache was in digital format, and I deleted it all after watching this 😀
What a weak-minded person you are…….what a shame.
Why?! Because someone said it is bad?! Can't you listen and decide for yourself?!
@vitorferreira6062 I had them because they were Celi and had listened to them very few times anyway. I didn't go back to those recordings because I didn't feel like. This video only compounded my feelings. It's not as if I took Dave's words literally.
When Celibidache didn't get the Berlin Phil job that he felt he deserved, I think he decided that he was going to be the guy to out - Furtwaengler Furtwaengler. What we ended up with was a conductor with all of the worst qualities of Furtwaengler and few of the better ones.
Celibidache was a hype, as there are many in music( pop as well as classical), e.g Gould, Callas...admired as divine but in fact mediocre at its best.
Callas mediocre?? pure non sense
@@brunop3845 I must refrase: Callas recorded in the mono era when everything sounded bad so it is impossible to make a correct assessment.
@@christianwouters6764 if many recordings were indeed badly recorded (mostly live) , many studio ones were not bad at all for that period, at least not as much to make impossible to appreciate the performance and interpretation. As her tragic end made clear, she was far from being divine...truly human, fragile, oversensitive, with her defects and weaknesses....but on stage she was giving life to her characters and their feelings: love, hate, rage, despair....whatever. Callas' interpretations have the ability to deeply impress those who listen to them. Nothing is missing: the extraordinary vocal ability, the depth of the interpretation, the originality of the construction of the characters. She was a singer-actress who played a fundamental role in the development of opera. Franco Zeffirelli said it well: "there is a before and an after, AC Ante Callas and DC After Callas. Everything changed. After Callas nothing was the same as before". Quite an assessment, and I believe is right.
There's nothing mediocre about Gould in any sense, even if he is questionable in many regards.
His orchestra wasn't able to play any faster. There's no other good reason for his tempo choices.
Good one. If it were only true.