From a personal perspective, I am grateful for the existence of recordings. Coming from a small town in a developing country, how could I have gotten to know all the music I love if not for recordings? That snobbish attitude hurts the very thing they claim to adore. Why wouldn't they want the music they are supposed to love to reach as much audience as possible?
Thanks for your thoughts. In my case, I went through a Bruckner phase when I listened to many different recordings. I would say that I enjoyed the slow tempo because it allowed me more time to hear details in Bruckner’s work… particularly th dissonant harmonies that otherwise happen so quickly that they are easy to miss in pursuit of melody , Just one person’s non expert opinion
Over the years, Celibidache conducted 99 concerts in Spain. I attended nine of those concerts in his later years with the Munchner Philharmoniker, between 1989 and the mid 90s. Among the works I heard live are several Bruckner symphonies (7th, 3rd--twice, 4th and 8th) and other works by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Strauss. He was unlike any other conductor I ever watcherd and heard live. This being said, in spite of his uniqueness, not once did he lead me to tears, which is something that sometimes happens, probably because of the intensity of the music and the receptiveness of the listener. As far as tears are concerned, with Zubin Mehta, a very electrifying conductor when you see him live, it was two out of seven.
Part of Karajans recording success is his understanding that live and recorded performances were different things. His recorded performances were consciously geared towards repeated listening. Concerts were events, chances were taken, more flexibility allowed… to me, that’s the problem with most live recordings: not the mistakes, but the giving in to the moment, which is great live, but tires on repeated listening…
Interesting observation. However, that very conscious approach has also caused them to age badly, in my view: they were geared to the preferences of the audiences of his time.
I absolutely agree. That's part of the reason I love live recordings on some occasions only. You won't want to listen to the warped Furtwangler everyday despite being quite a Furtwangler fan.
...if only the Titania Palast recording of 15.03.1949 had either been repeated the day after, without an audience. Or pushed to mid August where there would have been no cold affected audiences present, right @@ianng9915 ? 🙄
The coda of Bruckner's 4th, the adagio of the 6th, that intensity in the crescendos of the 1st movement of the 8th... the Bruckner recordings he did with the Munich Philarmonic are incredible! On the other side, I always wonder how Michelangeli and Celibidache could get along and work together... These two men, through their recording of the Ravel concerto, represent the "nec plus ultra" of "cultitude".
Ever since I heard livelier performances of Bruckner by people like Jascha Horenstein, Oskar Fried, Heinz Rögner (there’s not that many, because most conductors of the recorded era indulged in slow Bruckner) I’m unable to appreciate Celibidache. I understand how this somber, sanctimonious approach works like a drug, but it seems to me that once you are able to view it skeptically, the appeal fades away completely.
This seems like a good time and place to point how impressed I always am with those who comment on Mr. Hurwitz's videos. I value the comments almost as much as I value Mr. Hurwitz's reviews and discussions, which is saying a lot. These are thoughtful, civilized and articulate music lovers who agree to disagree, unlike the bitter and snarky commenters found on a certain gossip-mongering classical music blog originating in the UK. It seems to me that great music hasn't done the latter bunch much good.
I admit confusion. Since Celibidache denounced and rejected recording on principle, wouldn't a true cultist honor the condctor best by refusing to listen to his recordings? Or at most listening only once as if attendance at the concert in question?
@@OuterGalaxyLounge Droll, very droll! This might be a good test! The chosen concert hall will magically transform the performance to its live experience greatness!
Ironically, all the Münchner PO concerts were recorded, in analogue through the end of 1988, and in digital from then onwards. Consequently, there exists a good documentation for the work of Celibidache, and also of Carlos Kleiber (who also refused to set foot in a studio after Tristan in 1980). They are live, one-off recordings and preserve problems of the moment, but many of them are very valuable. I treasure a 1975 Kleiber Rosenkavalier, for example. Interestingly, Celibidache conducted Bruckner's Fourth in late 1988 (recorded in analogue) and early 1989 (recorded in digital). The 1989 was released on CD and the 1988 on both CD and just very recently on LP! The analogue one clips along at a good pace, but the digital one lasts forever and ever. That shows that he was not just a one-trick pony. I wonder how he convinced the same players to treat the same work with such different tempi, in such quick succession? In examining the videos of Bruckner in Japan, one sees that he maintained a rock-steady pulse, even when the tempo was unbelievably slow. He didn't just wave a limp wrist or a toothpick, he made large gestures to set the pulse and stayed with it. If he often started slow, he did not slow down as he went along, or slow down for the quiet passages and speed up for the loud ones. So I admire his music in Bruckner (which seems to work both faster and slower), but I wonder if something happened to his brain (a la Klemperer) at the beginning of 1989 that highlighted the slowness. Perhaps it was karma for the abuse of trombonists?
It is always funny to read the letter Kleiber published in Der Spiegel. RUclips will remove the link but just search for Kleibers letter to Celibidache and Google will do the magic.
The only personality which should deserve recognition is that of the composer, whom musicians serve as a vehicle, adding their talent to convey an emotional reading of their works. For that, I think the first quality they should display is humility. Toscanini or Szell were certainly not humble guys with their musicians, but they recognized the composer's primacy. I'm concerned only about music, and performances that touch my heart and set my imagination in "flying mode". I find Chelibidache more useful than enjoyable: his slow interpretations sometimes serve me to catch texture details to look for in other more exciting performances. Nevertheless, I can't deny that he's good on Bruckner and when music benefits of his ponderous approach. That's my taste. I'm Roberto Escobedo from Mexico, best regards to all.
Dave, your arguments are right on the mark, I can completely associate with them. One thing I would like to comment on, and that's something that all those listeners who base their arguments and judgement of performances purely on subjective factors, tend to forget (or are willingly ignorant to the fact) that you're a trained musician, who is able to judge a performance's merits based on musical facts rather than extra-musical information. It's another thing that you include additional factors in your "opinion" but they are also supported by your competence of judgement in this particular form of art. What I mean to say is that while I may be enjoying a particular performance, based on what I can grasp/understand of the musical realization of the concept of the composer/interpreter, I would never set my arguments against a trained professional and claim that my arguments are just as valid as his (regardless of the fact that I may have valid arguments in terms of judging a performance's merits based on comparative analysis, but they would still be subjective. My long(ish) comment is a general one, sorry, if I included it in the wrong place but I just watched this video after your video on the 2023 Bitchfest (and I must say I found both of them hugely entertaining) and I felt compelled to leave my comment in response to the phenomenon, in general.
Thank you for your very kind message. I would only offer this: I am not so much a trained musician as I am a trained critic, and there's a big difference between the two. There are many musicians far better trained than I am, including most of the artists I criticize. I can't say that my understanding of a work is deeper or more valid than anyone else's. However, there is a world of difference between merely listening to a performance for one's own pleasure, and listening comparatively in order to discuss its merits for the benefit of others. It's the difference between a hobby and a profession, and that is what I try to do. To the extent audiences find my professional views useful, then they may have a certain value beyond the purely personal opinions of the enthusiast or hobbyist. Verdi once said, "I may not be a learned composer, but I am a very experienced one." That, in essence, is the definition (or at least my definition) of a critic--not so much a trained musician as a trained listener.
I've recently seen some TV footage of him performing Beethoven's 7th on RUclips and it was such a drag to me that I felt a strong urge to leave a critical comment with all the risk of being bashed by some of his devotees. As expected, one of them (rather kindly) showed me all of my faults while praising the performance for musical qualities that aren't even there. What I found curious was that he never called him by his name (or surname), it was always Maestro. Maestro does this, Maestro does that....crap.
In Denmark Celi had an ardent proponent; our notorios music critic, (Germanborn) Hansgeorg Lenz who was known and feared for his high standards ("How did this conductor stand up to Bernstein or Karajan") and I remember from one of his very entertaining record reviews on radio that Lenz held Celi´s performance of Schumann 3rd "Reinisch" in especially high regard arguing a.e. that Celi through his tempi managed to highlight important details that most other conductors eschewed. What do you think Maestro (😉)@@DavesClassicalGuide? Something to it or...?
@@igorgregoryvedeltomaszewsk1148 Every Celi performance highlights details (important or not) that others miss. That's what he did. Of course, the performances often consisted of nothing BUT details. The main point was missing.
Whether you like him or not, Celibidache was an exceptional artist. Reading the comments here, people complain mostly about his tempi. He knew why he didn't want recordings, he was smart, they made his tempi implausible. But God, they were right in the concert hall, I was fortunate enough to have been in so many of them. Never heard anything like it since! His recordings are but a greyscale photo of a bed of flowers. The spectrum of colours he got out of each instrument in the orchestra and the absolute transparency of the sound in the hall are unmatched. Don't blame him for his family having released the recordings. You may not like his discs Mr Hurwitz but to call anyone disagreeing with this a toxic cult is a little over the top maybe?
No, it isn't, given the comments I have received here and elsewhere merely for saying that you just said--that the recordings suck, or, pardon me, they are "but a greyscale photo of a bed of flowers." BTW, I don't believe you--not that you didn't enjoy the concerts, but that because you enjoyed them, the performances were in fact any better than the lousy recordings demonstrate. This dichotomy between live and what is preserved by recordings in nonsense. The differences are within you, not with the music-making itself. As I listener, I invariably enjoy concerts that a know would never pass muster beyond the single event. That doesn't make the artists great; it just makes me open to the experience, as most of us are. It's like a one-night stand that wan't fabulous, but you still enjoy it even if you'd never repeat it.
I watched a wonderful performance by Trifonov on youtube- a pianist I love ( and how can anyone not)- and made the heinous mistake of commenting on the strands of soaking hair across his forehead; an observation, not a criticism, but I quickly realized I had stumbled across a site for Trifonov worshippers, when my observation was met with savage attacks on me. Wow. I hastily deleted the remark, in order to stanch the flow.
This kind of thing isa problem regardless of media. On Facebook there’s a fan appreciation group for a particular late comics artist which I’m in. But as much as I myself had loved that artist since I was a little kid in the 1960’s, not every page he did was magnificent (and sometimes he even sucked)….but don’t dare ever offer ANY critique or honest evaluation there because your head will immediately be taken off. It’s as if these nuts take any negative observation of their god-hero as a personal insult of epic proportions.
Celibidache's "Zen/Buddhist" inspired philosophy is based on common myths about Zen popularized in the '50s and on. The idea that nirvana is some kind of blissful state of calm, silent, mindless, spiritual bliss based on a rejection of conscious thought, etc. is one of the shibboleths challenged by Buddhism in the past 2 decades. Buddhism, like every other religion has been used for centuries to justify all kinds of actions (or non-actions). To put it simplistically, the ideal of something likes Zen is an attitude of complete openness to the mess of any and all situations and conditions, so that one can do what is appropriate for the benefit of all - happiness lies therein. The ideal is the complete opposite of selfishness. The larger self is the realization of one's self in actions that benefit all others. Zen, or other Buddhist ideas, is hardly justification for narcissistic navel-gazing, and rigid application of a "method", like slow tempos when they're not called for. Unfortunately Zen often becomes a justification for just that - self absorption. Instead, a truer Zen-like approach would be a selfless openness to the infinite ambiguity of what the music calls for, and give complete dedication to that. To cite my grad school mentor talking about art history - a Dutch Catholic missionary priest (of all things) - art history should be dedicated to doing justice to the work of art. He echoed what I hear in Dave's admonition to "keep on listening." My teacher kept saying, "keep on looking," "what do you SEE?" I have taken this advice to thinking about art and music in general.
My college Theory/ear training teacher (which later became a very close friend & collected recordings- we use to have Friday night listening night) tried to get me to drink the "Cele" koolaid, and I almost fell for it. His reputation was overblown, and his performances go nowhere. Thank God I only bought 3 CD's and quickly traded them in on good/enjoyable recordings which I still own.
I read that the members of the BPO didn't care for Celibadache, and heard that this was because of an attitude of entitlement on his part: he thought that he would get the BPO when Furtwaengler was gone. The only Celibidache I have is his Schubert's 9th which I don't care for. I knew a Brucknerite who liked Celibidache.
What I have learned from encounters with several toxic personalities in the music world is to be wary of charisma. The job of conducting (and probably of teaching in general) favours charismatic personalities who coax people to abandon an independent, skeptical perspective, and that’s why so often people reject other interpretive standpoints without any factual legitimation of doing so.
I think he’s the guy who hired a trombonist on a blind audition, then was shocked that the best trombonist was a woman and refused to seat her in the chair position. You have to wonder about the artistry of a musician who lets his eyes overrule his ears like that.
That was Abbie Conant who suffered, along with Munich audiences who would have benefitted from her artistry, from his misogyny. An amazing, revealing story. "I can't have a woman as first trombone."
@@bbailey7818 sexism in classical music has wrought a lot of damage. One wonders how much more great music would be there for us to enjoy if, for example, Nannerl Mozart had been allowed to learn composition. To say nothing of the silly notion that the VPO’s sound would be forever altered by the presence of estrogen among the players.
@@MDK2_Radio I've often thought of that. Father Mozart had little choice but to keep her out of the public eye once she came of age; it would have been scandalous to do otherwise. But if both Mozart children had had the chance to develop their musical talent fully, who's to say? Nannerl certainly would have produced some excellent music, perhaps better than her brother's.
Yes, he is. And for that reason, as a trombonist, I refuse to listen to anything he conducted, unless Abbie Conant is playing 1st trombone. She is, and always has been, a truly fine player…capable of playing everything from Bruckner to Berg. If Celibidache thought otherwise, it is due to his own chauvinistic views.
I have a soft spot for Celi's Bruckner even though they're slow. But for some reason I still think they stay intact and sound lovely. But I agree they're more Celi than Bruckner. When I want Bruckner there are dozens who conduct him in a more faithful way and I'll then choose Simone Young or Jochum or Karajan or tons of others. So which group of weirdoes do I fall under? :D
No offence. In my view, anyone who declares that she/he "truly, sincerely, honestly" enjoys/loves/claims to understand and can endure listening Bruckner's lengthy symphonies falls in a "specially extraordinary category" of humankind.
For me the job of a good critic is not to grade a performance on an objective scale (the usual high-minded and boring mission statement) but to 1) be entertaining, 2) adequately describe the work and/or performance so the reader can deduce if he or she might like it, and 3) teach the reader something they didn't know about the work or performers (which for intelligent people tends to be the best form of entertainment anyway).
Outstanding commentary, Dave. Though I'm not sure if a Reginald Goodall cult still really exists, due to the paucity of his output, much of what you said applies to the near-worship his excruciatingly slow and labored Wagner recordings evoked, especially in Britain. His Meistersinger if anything even heavier and more labored than his Ring and Parsifal. (Quite aside from his unremitting adherence to Oswald Mosley and his party. ) I believe even Celi will eventually be given up as a lost cause.
Dave, hello from Chilly Philly! I love your programs. What do you think of Christian DeNeuve's Berlioz interprétations? I've only seen a few videos, but it seems to me that he's overly histrionic, and gives too much weight to immersing himself in the music, to the point where his phrasing acquires too much rubato, and takes such liberties with tempo, as to render one to question the validity of his strange approach to some of the maestro's most enduring masterpieces.
Thank you for this video, as it represents a bucking of the trend that has seen people say “don’t read or respond to the comments!”. That is an unhealthy phenomenon, because discourse should be two way. And you show that you want to engage in good faith on each matter, which is excellent. As for Celibidache, I did obtain his recording of La Mer (upon your recommendation), thought it intriguing, then returned to ones I like more. As is the point of your channel.
My background is the fine arts, and we have some crazy critics and historians who insist on inserting commentaries about the artists' life into their discussion of that artist's work, even when that personal history has absolutely no reflection in the work of art. I hear you complain about this, too, as in the case with Bruckner, where critics keep talking about his peasant-like appearance, as if listening to his music is like stepping into a lower class hovel, instead of, for instance, like stepping into a cathedral. But in music, you have that added aggravation that the performer may also have baggage that gets inserted into the critical outlook of the performance. This is distracting at best, but most of the time it is corrupting and destructive to legitimate musical ends. It is often made worse by the contrasting ridicule that even famous composers sometimes suffer. My pet peeve is the cult that used to surround von Karajan, as if we should have given a shit that he drove an expensive sports car to his recording session of the Pathetique. It is all really sickening.
This sickness I suspect got its fuel from the "Deconstructionist" movement in literature, still prevalent today, where the circumstances of the creation of the art in question are more significant than the art itself. Which then infected the visual arts. Useful perhaps in a History of Art survey course, but as a substitute? Yak dung! Or maybe the infection goes all the way back to Duchamp's gimmickry (a true genius, yes, yet nevertheless overrated) and his cleverism of the "found objects/readymades Art". Purist gimmick, his first "found object" being a urinal, amusing as a provocative choice but nothing more. The attendant defense that "Art is whatever the artist says it is" and at the same instant pointing at such *found objects* - is pedantry about art, not art itself. Arriving at Celi, likewise what he offers is no thing but a gimmick. Slow it all down and voila! Shiny new genius revealed! I'll pass.
@@willsingourd2523 I very much agree with you. Many times art critics use the term deconstruct to praise an artist who takes a well known piece of art apart and puts it into a different context, yet adds nothing to it but some smarmy commentary derived from the new context that is only intended to make him appear equal or superior to the famous artist whose work he "appropriated". I blame post modernism, rather than Duchamp. Duchamp was like John Cage. He did things that no one was supposed to emulate, that are basically sophisticated gags. To emulate him you have to tell the same joke over again, and it just doesn't work. Postmodernism itself is the problem. It is based on a preposterous proposition: Art should have no theoretical or aesthetic center, but only because nothing has meaning or purpose. The idea that the center can only be empty of meaning is, however, a single, centralizing principle, and this inherent contradiction makes real pluralism impossible. The art of a hundred years ago was exponentially more plusalistic than it is now, but no one seems to want to admit it. Music, however, appears to be progressing on a different path. For instance, classical music is now full of real spirituality in all its forms - religious, like Part and Messaien, and non religious like Rautavaara and JL Adams. Stockhausen now sounds like an amateur musicologist. What a relief.
Conductor cults are an annoying fact of classical music life that I think are best ignored. I listen to what I like, whoever the conductor. Regarding Celibidache, I enjoy some of his work and find his early recordings generally much better.
with the power of social media over younh people's minds nowadays, these type of cults are created in a second today. i mean think about it: orchestras today make trailers( TRAILERS meant for movies) to 'showcase' how cool their young conductors are. brace yourself for more cults. but hopefully, shorter at a time
I would say, do not listen to his performance if you cannot hear what happens (sometimes). I mean really listen... full attention, I could almost say awareness. And you may experience something. If not... It does not really matter ;-) listen to other! If you do not get it, it is not important. I am happy that I can get it sometime, and what I am sure is that Celibidache is a much greater artist than me and that he help me to get an direct experience of the sound an the possibilities. Of course you should not start with his performance or consider this way of playing to be "the way" to do it. But once you know a piece it is sometime facinating to listen what he does. Again, it you do not get it it is not important 🙂.
Many performers have a " cult-like following". Celibidache is an actual cult. ( Correntis is the only other one I know of. ) it's the deciples, though. I am not sure how much devotion was encouraged or required from the master himself.
Thank you. The cultists were called "die Anhaenger" - literally "the hangers-on" but in fact "the travel trailers." They all sat together on one side of the room, while watching his rehearsals. I sat on the other side, alone. He was respectful and helpful to me. Never once did I see or hear anything said either to me or to the Anhaenger that encouraged worship.
I just recently finished listening to Orfeo 5-CD Celibidache box and the Decca Erich Kleiber box around the same time. I found myself enjoy listening to the Celibidache box more. Erich Kleiber's performances are better but personally I think there are performances with similar style with better sound which make the Kleiber box unnecessary to keep. For Celibidache, I can usually find moments in the performances that I like and few people does it the same way. For the parts that I don't like, when I listen to them again, I get used to them and they became not as bothersome. Today I listened to his DG Stuttgart Bruckner 7. Didn't like it and didn't bother listening to it again. Now I move on to the Gunter Wand RCA box. I am only half way through disc number 1 and I am already impressed
Ah! I hear your error. Never "get used to" bothersome parts. You might say, "Well, they're not SO bothersome". Though I'd doubt you. But that's really it isn't it? HOW bothersome is this or that passage, and literally moreover, how bothersome is it to listen to X number of times? As for myself, I won't be bothered. If there's ANYTHING actually cringeworthy about a work's conducting/performance, it gets filed away forever in the trash bin.
David. As we speak about listening to recorded music. What gear do you use and do you have any opinions about what level of audio equipment you should use? I ask because I think sound quality is important to get a good listening experience.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Would you please tell us why? Thank you! (I think some people here are interested by the audio gear in general, and I believe you were too at some point.)
@@DavesClassicalGuide There is no video dedicated to audio gear on your channel. Maybe you discussed the subject in other topics, and I missed it - fair enough, I'll have to dig deeper. In the end, what's important is the music, not the devices we use to hear it. It was just a small inquisitiveness. Thank you for your answer!
@@llucrescu9058; I recently had the opportunity to acquire a well used Rega Planet 2000 CD player offered to me by the car-less owner on the condition that I would be his chauffeur on a out of town trip to pick up a kitten in a village. Not a bad deal! Connecting it I was totally astounded by the quality of reproduction offered by this Rega model, which in regards of detail and clarity throws new light on recordings that I thought that I knew. Good audio does matter!
Until you made the recommendation to listen to the Jochum Brahms recordings, I had forgotten them. They are some of the best on the market. They have the freedom and breathing of Furtwängler and the ensemble of Szell. Celi always bored me.
Extremely informative, thank you. I will say however that when I was a much younger man, my first hearing of Beethoven’s Leonore 3, and Prokofiev’s symphony 1/Classical, were both from the “historical” circa 1948 BPO collection, and I really loved them and continue to do so. Perhaps it’s just because it was my first exposure. His subsequent Munich renderings of much of the classical repertoire I find unnecessarily painfully slow, eg Mozart 40, Beethoven 6. Zombie performances.
That Sibelius 5 was truly horrible. Musicians should play musically, not philosophically. Great musicians show respect and love for the music. Musical philosophers only respect and love their egos, and, of course, what ever praise their cultists lavish on them. Navel-gazing and good performance are usually incompatible.
Strangely you can find more Celibidaches documentaries on YT than Karajan docus, not mentioning many other first class conductors where you'll find an interview as best. I watched the newest documentary about him and there was not a single word of critique about his slow approach, far better, his slowness wasn't even mentioned. It may not be directly related to the matter, but there are two things that make me scratch my head when reading through various classical music forums. Two kinds of people who think they found ultimate wisdom and therefore are superior to us ordinary mortals: 1. "After hearing the Beethoven symphonies by Gardiner I will never listen to any conductor who doesn't play them in the correct tempo. How could I even bother with that boring shit like Karajan, Szell or Klemperer." I don't comment this, it speaks for itself. 2. People who look down contemptuously on others who think that the production of an opera should be in line with its musical and lyrical content and when an faithful production is mentioned in the forum they just answer "oh this old boring shit is so full of cliches". I'm personally turned off seeing Parsifal playing in prison with a stage crowded with policemen or any other 19th century opera playing in a subway or the Ring, where every characters is made up like a clown. I think modern Regietheater brings out more abominations than benefits. But according to the defenders of Regietheater the ones who don't like it don't have the intellect to understand it and live in the past anyway. Maybe this would be an interesting topic for a future video, if you like.
If you want to hear Celibidache at his best hear his pre-1955 recordings or live performances. Once he got involved in this Buddhist trauma the whole musical work became completely ruined. In those days he was very promising.
Ivo Pogorelich is an artist who is remarkably similar to Celibidache. Both pick apart the works they play by playing EVERYTHING at least half tempo and indiscriminately highlighting often trivial bits of material, and both have spawned similarly crazed pseudo-spiritual fanbases. Just because somebody expresses something in a novel way doesn't mean it's good, unless, I suppose, you worship the concept of them having created that novel idea. The novelty of the idea, according to such a person, would necessarily facilitate a new understanding of the world. This fact, independent of the quality of the art determined by the generally accepted and internalized criteria of the art form/genre, would mean to such a person that the art must necessarily be the mark of a genius. In fact, for this person, it is when a piece of art seemingly cannot be adequately judged based on the current criteria that that art has true value. It is when the value structures are questioned that the appreciation comes. I think that oftentimes it is due to this sort of reasoning that one decides to worship figures such as Pogorelich or Celibidache, not because they actually enjoy (or experience) the emotional reaction that the music had been written to evoke (if that was indeed the intention of the music). This is not to say that one cannot get real enjoyment out of either's interpretations (I like recordings of both), it is just that when a cult gathers around something, I question whether the admiration stems from the art itself, or a collective intellectual exercise with the art as its subject.
Having several thoughts about this matter I'll mention just one. Wondering why haven't you mentioned one quality that Celibidache is entirely lacking - leaving spaces between sounds or silences within which music is flowing. This is one of the main qualities that give music air and tension, even if tempo may be extremely slow. His interpretations sound as if he wanted to suffocate compositions he conducted. For instance his Haydn got literally strangled...
@@DavesClassicalGuide This is a funny and interesting question. But herpes is not interesting, at last not for me. I never looked a video about herpes on youtube. And unfortuntely you didn' t make anything about it.
I personally really enjoy Celibidache's live recordings but his style is idiosyncratic as can be.... a bit like Glenn Gould but their style is like the polar opposite; Gould was cerebral to the extreme, whereas Celibidache was spiritual to the extreme. By the way, an identical quasi-Messianic cult exists around the Hungarian pianist Ervin Nyiregyházi.
I totaly agree. This is a cult, like a religion. But you want to believe him when you listen what he says. It makes you feel good. The slow tempo works on Bruckner. The rest is weird.
Sam the record man in downtown toronto actually had a "bootleg" section of his recordings. Always wondered who was this guy. Why buy a dubious copy when somebody i heard of is releasing the same stuff. In the internet age i found out he had a following.
Several years ago, I discovered an interview on RUclips of Celibidache discussing his philosophy of music. Not being a musician or a philosopher, I thought that the interview would still be of interest. On the contrary, I could not interpret anything the man said. Complete gobbledygook. Still love his Bruckner, though.
Wonderful talk Dave. Thanks so much. Sincere serious musicians abhor the cult of personality & some have had their lives almost ruined by it ("but these people don't even know me" was the rather naive comment of one famous singer plagued by "fans"). Others seem to cultivate the attention & the following. There's a fun analysis of the whack job dynamics in Freud's Group Psychology & the Analysis of the Ego. I recently met a fellow music lover in London who after a concert kindly invited me home for a coffee. The feature wall of his listening room displayed some 15 signed photographs of Kna... hmmmm
I think a BIG part of Karajan's leaving the BPO was over a similarly "misogynistic controversy" surrounding clarinetist EXTRODINAIRE Sabine Meyer. Karajan hired Miss Meyer in 1982; one of the first female musicians to join the BPO... but the all-male Berliners - displaying, spectacularly, for ALL the world to see, their collective sissified insecurity as males of the species! - voted AGAINST her permanent tenure (by a vote of 73-4... claiming that her "tone was incompatible" with the more astute members of the He-Man clarinet section!). After 9 agonizing months in the BPO, Meyer left that fetid organization (🖕held firmly aloft!) to become one of the world's premiere clarinet soloists, making a string of fabulous recordings for EMI (HA, and double HA, say I!). After such a thorough display of "male chauvinism trumps music," Karajan's relationship with the BPO was never the same again (Karajan did, in fact, have two daughters!)... and in only 6 years, he too resigned his position with the... er... orchestra... making his final recording NOT with the BPO, but with their great Austrian rivals, the Wiener Philharmoniker. Oh, the sweet IRONY of it all! Mike D.
The other irony is that much of that attitude on the part of the orchestra seems to have been caused indirectly by Karajan's total control over it. By the late 1980s, the BP was certainly no longer the force it had been ten years before.
Although it was framed in terms of the orchestra's silly male chauvinism, which was certainly a factor too, the politics of the situation revolved around the orchestra's resentment of Karajan's usurping of their traditional right to have a say in new appointments. Meyer, as you point out, was eminently qualified, but Karajan had no right to hire her on his unilateral authority.
Appeal to authority is the biggest problem facing classical music performers, I feel. When musicians no longer feel like they can trust their own point of views on music, and instead resort to aping their favorite(or most revered) interpretation, you get phony and disingenuous performances
Hardly anything could be more alien to me than devoting myself body and soul to some artist however good he or she may be. Art - as well as science for that matter - should be about searching, not about claiming to have found something supposedly ultimate. I love listening to different kind of interpretations of my favorite works. I may not like all of them equally (how could I), but that's what makes this hobby so continuously interesting.
You obviously are more knowledgeable about music than I am, but your offensive comments and opinions are highly questionable. I have listened to Bruckner almost on a daily basis for the last 30 years, and I have found his interpretations of Bruckner as among the very best. The slow tempi can be shocking at first, sometimes they seem inappropriate, but in many cases they really do bring the complexity, depth and greatness of the music to new levels. It's easy to be a critique of music (or of wine, or anything else), much harder to actually create or perform it. I like your channel and frank opinions, but this one is a real low.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for pointing this out. Yeah, maybe I got picked by your comments on Celi and then ignored the rest. "Relieved" that you are a fan of Celi's Bruckner. To be honest, I never listened to anything from Celi that is not Bruckner. So yeah, maybe my focus was a bit narrow here.
@@fredericperrin3279 I appreciate your honesty about what you have heard, but am mildly appalled that you would comment on the basis of what you haven't.
I used to force myself to listen to him, convinced he would help me find a deeper meaning with his slogging tempos, but he never did. Ultimately it occurred to me-if you don’t like it, stop listening!
As you do, I like some of his Bruckner; but in light of the cult raves, I started listening to some of his other youtube videos of other composers and was less than impressed and even distressed at what he did with some works.
Let's be real here, there is no chance in hell he rejected recordings because of his philosophy. He just first heard how his performances suck and then he invented a philosophy to excuse himself and to cope. Just like how people praise performances on ridiculous grounds. For example, my music history teacher praised Celi's Pictures at an exhibition because the Promenade goes at a walking pace which is idiomatic. Yeah, because we all know THAT IS WHY HE DID IT. If it was called A Sprint through the Gallery he would still take that damn tempo and we all know it.
amazing story about the cult of personnality and funny to...oh my god ...i d,ont beleive that....and for the TEMPO.....so one other amazing story....you know certainely mr hurwitz....when leonard bernstein want to conduct the first piano concerto of brahms with glenn gould,,he made a speech before and he tell '' i gone to adopt the tempo of mr gould for this concerto''....and this is incredible ...when he recording the same concerto with krystian zimmerman for dgg....bernstein adopt the same tempo of glenn gould.....amazing story in the history of music.....!
The selectivity axiom put forward in this video certainly seems sound. As already was mused in The Good Book: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1. Thess, V, 21)! As for Celi's pseudophilosophy, in my book it runs along with the superficiailty, one somewhat always senses with Karajan (the person that is, not the musician!), when he touched upon extra-musical matters. To both of them the concept of humility seemed as remote as from here to the next galaxy. Karajan with the cult and entourage, while alive - Celi even more dead than alive. And whilst at it: zen hasn't much to do with being intolerably slow, as Peter Maag proved to a 't' - both before and after his time spent in a monastery garden! One of the Celi recordings, I cherish, though, didn't make it to Dave's top 5. It's not for everyday listening, but I like to tag along the promenade through his Pictures at an Exhibition - and, boy, that Great Gate of Kiev is IMMENSELY GRAND! 😁
David -- I agree with your assessment of Celibidache completely. Most of the performances I've heard either border on the absurd or are over the border. Consider his Fledermaus Overture. Can any sane person believe that his tempo is Allegro Vivace? His Sibelius En Saga is contrary to what Sibelius wrote in so many ways, including his long accelerando at the end that Sibelius did not requrest. On and on. And, of course, Carlos Kleiber disliked both the man and his work (and wrote that very funny letter supposedly from Toscanini in heaven about Celibidache, telling him he "sucked"). Every now and then you find a Celibidache performance that is convincing, mostly Bruckner. As for the Celi crazies, agree there too. Much like most cults, the operative word is "crazy".
Celi obviously had a Cult following. His overly Slow tempos drove me crazy! He never observed the composer s intentions ie: Tempo markings.He,and He alone Dictated the tempos. He would have better suited being a Dictator in some country that accepted Dictators
Do you think that was the reason why Celibidache was so good at Bruckner? Because of the non positive aspects of the music of Bruckner that were so loved by Celi.
Hi Dave. I'm sorry you have to deal with celibidache cultists. I find them and the worship of their hero so tiresome. There is a strain of them within our Bruckner cult. A cult within a cult. I've had to cut of one of them after I said his recording of Bruckners 9th isn't profound just very slow. Yes you may hear inner details in the score, but so what. His tempo reminds me of my beginning study of a piano work where I go pretty slow. I joke to my wife, im not slow, im profound! Classical music has many of theses artist cults. Many elevate composers themselves to near deities, worshiping them as superman. As I've aged, I've less patience for it all. Paul G
In interviews, Celibidache trashed many, if not all, of the other conductors with name recognition, starting with Bernstein and ending with Karajan. Never trust such a person.
There's no concept more perplexing to me than the worship of an individual, particularly a deceased one. What merit is there in the mindless (and often times, venomous) defense of one's hero? Surely it can't be for attention, if their hero is dead -- and even if that weren't the case, I doubt Mr. Celibidache would take notice of all their screeching and gnashing of teeth, anyways.
I wouldnt be surprised if you received death threats. He isnt the first strange conductor, but even Stokowski didnt have this kind of cult following. "Celi' didnt discourage it, but I dont know how much he consciously developed the cult. With few recordings , it added to his mystique. Saw him once on tour with his orchestra. The crowd was ecstatic, the performance: meh, whatever. The strings were very loud. Thats my only memory.
I was just telling my brother that I was slowly discovering that he is over rated. If it wasn't for all the RUclips videos of his recordings, I never would have discovered that his performances are so slow that a lot of them just limp along. Glad to know I'm not the only who feels this way.
Dave, in a book authored by composer Bengt de Törne, Mr. Törne claimed Sibelius said, "Remember, a statue has never been set up in honour of a critic!" I dare say Celibidache's followers are not going to build you a statue! The Sibelius quote seemed to be apt for this situation. I have a lifetime experience in the arts are whether the artist belongs to the cult of academic modernism or the cult of Celibidache, the person usually lacks imagination. I endured academic ax grinders in art college and without a doubt, they made the worst art that was worthy of only being used as a doormat. Cultists exist everywhere and there characteristics are similar.
From a personal perspective, I am grateful for the existence of recordings. Coming from a small town in a developing country, how could I have gotten to know all the music I love if not for recordings? That snobbish attitude hurts the very thing they claim to adore. Why wouldn't they want the music they are supposed to love to reach as much audience as possible?
Thanks for your thoughts. In my case, I went through a Bruckner phase when I listened to many different recordings. I would say that I enjoyed the slow tempo because it allowed me more time to hear details in Bruckner’s work… particularly th dissonant harmonies that otherwise happen so quickly that they are easy to miss in pursuit of melody , Just one person’s non expert opinion
Over the years, Celibidache conducted 99 concerts in Spain. I attended nine of those concerts in his later years with the Munchner Philharmoniker, between 1989 and the mid 90s. Among the works I heard live are several Bruckner symphonies (7th, 3rd--twice, 4th and 8th) and other works by Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Debussy and Strauss. He was unlike any other conductor I ever watcherd and heard live. This being said, in spite of his uniqueness, not once did he lead me to tears, which is something that sometimes happens, probably because of the intensity of the music and the receptiveness of the listener. As far as tears are concerned, with Zubin Mehta, a very electrifying conductor when you see him live, it was two out of seven.
If a Bruckner slow movement doesn't throw one into tears, then the performance probably is flawed.
@@williamsu5552 Perhaps the flaw lies within me as a listener.
Excellent discussion, Dave. Thanks for expressing your reasonable perspectives respectfully and lucidly.
Part of Karajans recording success is his understanding that live and recorded performances were different things. His recorded performances were consciously geared towards repeated listening. Concerts were events, chances were taken, more flexibility allowed… to me, that’s the problem with most live recordings: not the mistakes, but the giving in to the moment, which is great live, but tires on repeated listening…
Very much the same with Munch.
Interesting observation. However, that very conscious approach has also caused them to age badly, in my view: they were geared to the preferences of the audiences of his time.
I absolutely agree. That's part of the reason I love live recordings on some occasions only. You won't want to listen to the warped Furtwangler everyday despite being quite a Furtwangler fan.
Especially evident in opera
...if only the Titania Palast recording of 15.03.1949 had either been repeated the day after, without an audience. Or pushed to mid August where there would have been no cold affected audiences present, right @@ianng9915 ? 🙄
The coda of Bruckner's 4th, the adagio of the 6th, that intensity in the crescendos of the 1st movement of the 8th... the Bruckner recordings he did with the Munich Philarmonic are incredible! On the other side, I always wonder how Michelangeli and Celibidache could get along and work together... These two men, through their recording of the Ravel concerto, represent the "nec plus ultra" of "cultitude".
Which of Celibidaches performances of the 8th are you referring to@@EnriqueHernandez-zk7qc?
Münchener PO from 1993 on EMI ?
Ever since I heard livelier performances of Bruckner by people like Jascha Horenstein, Oskar Fried, Heinz Rögner (there’s not that many, because most conductors of the recorded era indulged in slow Bruckner) I’m unable to appreciate Celibidache. I understand how this somber, sanctimonious approach works like a drug, but it seems to me that once you are able to view it skeptically, the appeal fades away completely.
A critic is someone who judges but does not create anything. Celibidache's Bruckner no 4 concert was incredible.
Well, we live in free world (supposedly, although I've been more and more doubting it), and everybody could comment freely whatever is of concern.
You're cliche speaks for itself--they are only used by those incapable of original thought.
This seems like a good time and place to point how impressed I always am with those who comment on Mr. Hurwitz's videos. I value the comments almost as much as I value Mr. Hurwitz's reviews and discussions, which is saying a lot. These are thoughtful, civilized and articulate music lovers who agree to disagree, unlike the bitter and snarky commenters found on a certain gossip-mongering classical music blog originating in the UK. It seems to me that great music hasn't done the latter bunch much good.
Thank you.
I admit confusion. Since Celibidache denounced and rejected recording on principle, wouldn't a true cultist honor the condctor best by refusing to listen to his recordings? Or at most listening only once as if attendance at the concert in question?
My point precisely.
There might be a loophole whereby if you play the recorded performance in a concert hall you get a pass ...?
@@OuterGalaxyLounge Droll, very droll! This might be a good test! The chosen concert hall will magically transform the performance to its live experience greatness!
Dave you've made some excellent points. I missed some very fine music by following a cult conductor. Thanks Dave
Ironically, all the Münchner PO concerts were recorded, in analogue through the end of 1988, and in digital from then onwards. Consequently, there exists a good documentation for the work of Celibidache, and also of Carlos Kleiber (who also refused to set foot in a studio after Tristan in 1980). They are live, one-off recordings and preserve problems of the moment, but many of them are very valuable. I treasure a 1975 Kleiber Rosenkavalier, for example. Interestingly, Celibidache conducted Bruckner's Fourth in late 1988 (recorded in analogue) and early 1989 (recorded in digital). The 1989 was released on CD and the 1988 on both CD and just very recently on LP! The analogue one clips along at a good pace, but the digital one lasts forever and ever. That shows that he was not just a one-trick pony. I wonder how he convinced the same players to treat the same work with such different tempi, in such quick succession? In examining the videos of Bruckner in Japan, one sees that he maintained a rock-steady pulse, even when the tempo was unbelievably slow. He didn't just wave a limp wrist or a toothpick, he made large gestures to set the pulse and stayed with it. If he often started slow, he did not slow down as he went along, or slow down for the quiet passages and speed up for the loud ones. So I admire his music in Bruckner (which seems to work both faster and slower), but I wonder if something happened to his brain (a la Klemperer) at the beginning of 1989 that highlighted the slowness. Perhaps it was karma for the abuse of trombonists?
We here at the Carlos Kleiber cult couldn't agree more! Thank you, David!
You're next! 😅 Just kidding, but it's always good to be selective, every conductor has some flaws.
It is always funny to read the letter Kleiber published in Der Spiegel. RUclips will remove the link but just search for Kleibers letter to Celibidache and Google will do the magic.
The only personality which should deserve recognition is that of the composer, whom musicians serve as a vehicle, adding their talent to convey an emotional reading of their works. For that, I think the first quality they should display is humility. Toscanini or Szell were certainly not humble guys with their musicians, but they recognized the composer's primacy. I'm concerned only about music, and performances that touch my heart and set my imagination in "flying mode". I find Chelibidache more useful than enjoyable: his slow interpretations sometimes serve me to catch texture details to look for in other more exciting performances. Nevertheless, I can't deny that he's good on Bruckner and when music benefits of his ponderous approach. That's my taste. I'm Roberto Escobedo from Mexico, best regards to all.
Dave, your arguments are right on the mark, I can completely associate with them. One thing I would like to comment on, and that's something that all those listeners who base their arguments and judgement of performances purely on subjective factors, tend to forget (or are willingly ignorant to the fact) that you're a trained musician, who is able to judge a performance's merits based on musical facts rather than extra-musical information. It's another thing that you include additional factors in your "opinion" but they are also supported by your competence of judgement in this particular form of art. What I mean to say is that while I may be enjoying a particular performance, based on what I can grasp/understand of the musical realization of the concept of the composer/interpreter, I would never set my arguments against a trained professional and claim that my arguments are just as valid as his (regardless of the fact that I may have valid arguments in terms of judging a performance's merits based on comparative analysis, but they would still be subjective. My long(ish) comment is a general one, sorry, if I included it in the wrong place but I just watched this video after your video on the 2023 Bitchfest (and I must say I found both of them hugely entertaining) and I felt compelled to leave my comment in response to the phenomenon, in general.
Thank you for your very kind message. I would only offer this: I am not so much a trained musician as I am a trained critic, and there's a big difference between the two. There are many musicians far better trained than I am, including most of the artists I criticize. I can't say that my understanding of a work is deeper or more valid than anyone else's. However, there is a world of difference between merely listening to a performance for one's own pleasure, and listening comparatively in order to discuss its merits for the benefit of others. It's the difference between a hobby and a profession, and that is what I try to do. To the extent audiences find my professional views useful, then they may have a certain value beyond the purely personal opinions of the enthusiast or hobbyist. Verdi once said, "I may not be a learned composer, but I am a very experienced one." That, in essence, is the definition (or at least my definition) of a critic--not so much a trained musician as a trained listener.
I've recently seen some TV footage of him performing Beethoven's 7th on RUclips and it was such a drag to me that I felt a strong urge to leave a critical comment with all the risk of being bashed by some of his devotees. As expected, one of them (rather kindly) showed me all of my faults while praising the performance for musical qualities that aren't even there. What I found curious was that he never called him by his name (or surname), it was always Maestro. Maestro does this, Maestro does that....crap.
Oy!
'They' are that bad, eh?
Deification...
In Denmark Celi had an ardent proponent; our notorios music critic, (Germanborn) Hansgeorg Lenz who was known and feared for his high standards ("How did this conductor stand up to Bernstein or Karajan") and I remember from one of his very entertaining record reviews on radio that Lenz held Celi´s performance of Schumann 3rd "Reinisch" in especially high regard arguing a.e. that Celi through his tempi managed to highlight important details that most other conductors eschewed.
What do you think Maestro (😉)@@DavesClassicalGuide? Something to it or...?
@@igorgregoryvedeltomaszewsk1148 Every Celi performance highlights details (important or not) that others miss. That's what he did. Of course, the performances often consisted of nothing BUT details. The main point was missing.
Whether you like him or not, Celibidache was an exceptional artist. Reading the comments here, people complain mostly about his tempi. He knew why he didn't want recordings, he was smart, they made his tempi implausible. But God, they were right in the concert hall, I was fortunate enough to have been in so many of them. Never heard anything like it since! His recordings are but a greyscale photo of a bed of flowers. The spectrum of colours he got out of each instrument in the orchestra and the absolute transparency of the sound in the hall are unmatched. Don't blame him for his family having released the recordings. You may not like his discs Mr Hurwitz but to call anyone disagreeing with this a toxic cult is a little over the top maybe?
No, it isn't, given the comments I have received here and elsewhere merely for saying that you just said--that the recordings suck, or, pardon me, they are "but a greyscale photo of a bed of flowers." BTW, I don't believe you--not that you didn't enjoy the concerts, but that because you enjoyed them, the performances were in fact any better than the lousy recordings demonstrate. This dichotomy between live and what is preserved by recordings in nonsense. The differences are within you, not with the music-making itself. As I listener, I invariably enjoy concerts that a know would never pass muster beyond the single event. That doesn't make the artists great; it just makes me open to the experience, as most of us are. It's like a one-night stand that wan't fabulous, but you still enjoy it even if you'd never repeat it.
I watched a wonderful performance by Trifonov on youtube- a pianist I love ( and how can anyone not)- and made the heinous mistake of commenting on the strands of soaking hair across his forehead; an observation, not a criticism, but I quickly realized I had stumbled across a site for Trifonov worshippers, when my observation was met with savage attacks on me. Wow. I hastily deleted the remark, in order to stanch the flow.
This kind of thing isa problem regardless of media. On Facebook there’s a fan appreciation group for a particular late comics artist which I’m in. But as much as I myself had loved that artist since I was a little kid in the 1960’s, not every page he did was magnificent (and sometimes he even sucked)….but don’t dare ever offer ANY critique or honest evaluation there because your head will immediately be taken off. It’s as if these nuts take any negative observation of their god-hero as a personal insult of epic proportions.
Celibidache's "Zen/Buddhist" inspired philosophy is based on common myths about Zen popularized in the '50s and on. The idea that nirvana is some kind of blissful state of calm, silent, mindless, spiritual bliss based on a rejection of conscious thought, etc. is one of the shibboleths challenged by Buddhism in the past 2 decades. Buddhism, like every other religion has been used for centuries to justify all kinds of actions (or non-actions). To put it simplistically, the ideal of something likes Zen is an attitude of complete openness to the mess of any and all situations and conditions, so that one can do what is appropriate for the benefit of all - happiness lies therein. The ideal is the complete opposite of selfishness. The larger self is the realization of one's self in actions that benefit all others.
Zen, or other Buddhist ideas, is hardly justification for narcissistic navel-gazing, and rigid application of a "method", like slow tempos when they're not called for. Unfortunately Zen often becomes a justification for just that - self absorption. Instead, a truer Zen-like approach would be a selfless openness to the infinite ambiguity of what the music calls for, and give complete dedication to that. To cite my grad school mentor talking about art history - a Dutch Catholic missionary priest (of all things) - art history should be dedicated to doing justice to the work of art. He echoed what I hear in Dave's admonition to "keep on listening." My teacher kept saying, "keep on looking," "what do you SEE?" I have taken this advice to thinking about art and music in general.
I joined the Havergal Brian Society some years ago. One of the nicest societies of its kind. Would happily join again.
My college Theory/ear training teacher (which later became a very close friend & collected recordings- we use to have Friday night listening night) tried to get me to drink the "Cele" koolaid, and I almost fell for it.
His reputation was overblown, and his performances go nowhere.
Thank God I only bought 3 CD's and quickly traded them in on good/enjoyable recordings which I still own.
I read that the members of the BPO didn't care for Celibadache, and heard that this was because of an attitude of entitlement on his part: he thought that he would get the BPO when Furtwaengler was gone. The only Celibidache I have is his Schubert's 9th which I don't care for. I knew a Brucknerite who liked Celibidache.
What I have learned from encounters with several toxic personalities in the music world is to be wary of charisma.
The job of conducting (and probably of teaching in general) favours charismatic personalities who coax people to abandon an independent, skeptical perspective, and that’s why so often people reject other interpretive standpoints without any factual legitimation of doing so.
I think he’s the guy who hired a trombonist on a blind audition, then was shocked that the best trombonist was a woman and refused to seat her in the chair position. You have to wonder about the artistry of a musician who lets his eyes overrule his ears like that.
That was Abbie Conant who suffered, along with Munich audiences who would have benefitted from her artistry, from his misogyny. An amazing, revealing story. "I can't have a woman as first trombone."
@@bbailey7818 sexism in classical music has wrought a lot of damage. One wonders how much more great music would be there for us to enjoy if, for example, Nannerl Mozart had been allowed to learn composition. To say nothing of the silly notion that the VPO’s sound would be forever altered by the presence of estrogen among the players.
@@MDK2_Radio I've often thought of that. Father Mozart had little choice but to keep her out of the public eye once she came of age; it would have been scandalous to do otherwise. But if both Mozart children had had the chance to develop their musical talent fully, who's to say? Nannerl certainly would have produced some excellent music, perhaps better than her brother's.
@@MDK2_Radio And of course Sabine Meyer as well as Alma Mahler, though not entirely sure if sexism fully explains the latter's case.
Yes, he is. And for that reason, as a trombonist, I refuse to listen to anything he conducted, unless Abbie Conant is playing 1st trombone. She is, and always has been, a truly fine player…capable of playing everything from Bruckner to Berg. If Celibidache thought otherwise, it is due to his own chauvinistic views.
I have a soft spot for Celi's Bruckner even though they're slow. But for some reason I still think they stay intact and sound lovely. But I agree they're more Celi than Bruckner. When I want Bruckner there are dozens who conduct him in a more faithful way and I'll then choose Simone Young or Jochum or Karajan or tons of others. So which group of weirdoes do I fall under? :D
I like his Bruckner too, as I said. I argue for selectivity, not blind worship.
No offence. In my view, anyone who declares that she/he "truly, sincerely, honestly" enjoys/loves/claims to understand and can endure listening Bruckner's lengthy symphonies falls in a "specially extraordinary category" of humankind.
For me the job of a good critic is not to grade a performance on an objective scale (the usual high-minded and boring mission statement) but to 1) be entertaining, 2) adequately describe the work and/or performance so the reader can deduce if he or she might like it, and 3) teach the reader something they didn't know about the work or performers (which for intelligent people tends to be the best form of entertainment anyway).
Outstanding commentary, Dave. Though I'm not sure if a Reginald Goodall cult still really exists, due to the paucity of his output, much of what you said applies to the near-worship his excruciatingly slow and labored Wagner recordings evoked, especially in Britain. His Meistersinger if anything even heavier and more labored than his Ring and Parsifal. (Quite aside from his unremitting adherence to Oswald Mosley and his party. ) I believe even Celi will eventually be given up as a lost cause.
Dave, hello from Chilly Philly! I love your programs. What do you think of Christian DeNeuve's Berlioz interprétations? I've only seen a few videos, but it seems to me that he's overly histrionic, and gives too much weight to immersing himself in the music, to the point where his phrasing acquires too much rubato, and takes such liberties with tempo, as to render one to question the validity of his strange approach to some of the maestro's most enduring masterpieces.
Thank you for this video, as it represents a bucking of the trend that has seen people say “don’t read or respond to the comments!”. That is an unhealthy phenomenon, because discourse should be two way. And you show that you want to engage in good faith on each matter, which is excellent. As for Celibidache, I did obtain his recording of La Mer (upon your recommendation), thought it intriguing, then returned to ones I like more. As is the point of your channel.
My background is the fine arts, and we have some crazy critics and historians who insist on inserting commentaries about the artists' life into their discussion of that artist's work, even when that personal history has absolutely no reflection in the work of art. I hear you complain about this, too, as in the case with Bruckner, where critics keep talking about his peasant-like appearance, as if listening to his music is like stepping into a lower class hovel, instead of, for instance, like stepping into a cathedral. But in music, you have that added aggravation that the performer may also have baggage that gets inserted into the critical outlook of the performance. This is distracting at best, but most of the time it is corrupting and destructive to legitimate musical ends. It is often made worse by the contrasting ridicule that even famous composers sometimes suffer. My pet peeve is the cult that used to surround von Karajan, as if we should have given a shit that he drove an expensive sports car to his recording session of the Pathetique. It is all really sickening.
This sickness I suspect got its fuel from the "Deconstructionist" movement in literature, still prevalent today, where the circumstances of the creation of the art in question are more significant than the art itself. Which then infected the visual arts. Useful perhaps in a History of Art survey course, but as a substitute? Yak dung!
Or maybe the infection goes all the way back to Duchamp's gimmickry (a true genius, yes, yet nevertheless overrated) and his cleverism of the "found objects/readymades Art". Purist gimmick, his first "found object" being a urinal, amusing as a provocative choice but nothing more. The attendant defense that "Art is whatever the artist says it is" and at the same instant pointing at such *found objects* - is pedantry about art, not art itself.
Arriving at Celi, likewise what he offers is no thing but a gimmick. Slow it all down and voila! Shiny new genius revealed! I'll pass.
@@willsingourd2523 I very much agree with you. Many times art critics use the term deconstruct to praise an artist who takes a well known piece of art apart and puts it into a different context, yet adds nothing to it but some smarmy commentary derived from the new context that is only intended to make him appear equal or superior to the famous artist whose work he "appropriated". I blame post modernism, rather than Duchamp. Duchamp was like John Cage. He did things that no one was supposed to emulate, that are basically sophisticated gags. To emulate him you have to tell the same joke over again, and it just doesn't work.
Postmodernism itself is the problem. It is based on a preposterous proposition: Art should have no theoretical or aesthetic center, but only because nothing has meaning or purpose. The idea that the center can only be empty of meaning is, however, a single, centralizing principle, and this inherent contradiction makes real pluralism impossible. The art of a hundred years ago was exponentially more plusalistic than it is now, but no one seems to want to admit it.
Music, however, appears to be progressing on a different path. For instance, classical music is now full of real spirituality in all its forms - religious, like Part and Messaien, and non religious like Rautavaara and JL Adams. Stockhausen now sounds like an amateur musicologist. What a relief.
Conductor cults are an annoying fact of classical music life that I think are best ignored. I listen to what I like, whoever the conductor. Regarding Celibidache, I enjoy some of his work and find his early recordings generally much better.
with the power of social media over younh people's minds nowadays, these type of cults are created in a second today. i mean think about it: orchestras today make trailers( TRAILERS meant for movies) to 'showcase' how cool their young conductors are. brace yourself for more cults. but hopefully, shorter at a time
I would say, do not listen to his performance if you cannot hear what happens (sometimes). I mean really listen... full attention, I could almost say awareness. And you may experience something. If not... It does not really matter ;-) listen to other! If you do not get it, it is not important.
I am happy that I can get it sometime, and what I am sure is that Celibidache is a much greater artist than me and that he help me to get an direct experience of the sound an the possibilities. Of course you should not start with his performance or consider this way of playing to be "the way" to do it. But once you know a piece it is sometime facinating to listen what he does. Again, it you do not get it it is not important 🙂.
It's not important if you do get it. But I agree, it's sometimes fun to hear him futz around with the music.
Many performers have a " cult-like following". Celibidache is an actual cult. ( Correntis is the only other one I know of. ) it's the deciples, though. I am not sure how much devotion was encouraged or required from the master himself.
Thank you. The cultists were called "die Anhaenger" - literally "the hangers-on" but in fact "the travel trailers." They all sat together on one side of the room, while watching his rehearsals. I sat on the other side, alone. He was respectful and helpful to me. Never once did I see or hear anything said either to me or to the Anhaenger that encouraged worship.
I just recently finished listening to Orfeo 5-CD Celibidache box and the Decca Erich Kleiber box around the same time. I found myself enjoy listening to the Celibidache box more. Erich Kleiber's performances are better but personally I think there are performances with similar style with better sound which make the Kleiber box unnecessary to keep. For Celibidache, I can usually find moments in the performances that I like and few people does it the same way. For the parts that I don't like, when I listen to them again, I get used to them and they became not as bothersome. Today I listened to his DG Stuttgart Bruckner 7. Didn't like it and didn't bother listening to it again. Now I move on to the Gunter Wand RCA box. I am only half way through disc number 1 and I am already impressed
OK, but those (mediocre) broadcast performances date from 1957/58, well before Celibidache went insane and became CELIBIDACHE.
Ah! I hear your error. Never "get used to" bothersome parts. You might say, "Well, they're not SO bothersome". Though I'd doubt you. But that's really it isn't it? HOW bothersome is this or that passage, and literally moreover, how bothersome is it to listen to X number of times?
As for myself, I won't be bothered. If there's ANYTHING actually cringeworthy about a work's conducting/performance, it gets filed away forever in the trash bin.
Laughed my ass off at this and I've barely heard Celibidache
David. As we speak about listening to recorded music. What gear do you use and do you have any opinions about what level of audio equipment you should use? I ask because I think sound quality is important to get a good listening experience.
I never discuss audio.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Would you please tell us why? Thank you!
(I think some people here are interested by the audio gear in general, and I believe you were too at some point.)
@@llucrescu9058 I have done so many, many times here, and I'm sorry but I will not do so again.
@@DavesClassicalGuide There is no video dedicated to audio gear on your channel. Maybe you discussed the subject in other topics, and I missed it - fair enough, I'll have to dig deeper.
In the end, what's important is the music, not the devices we use to hear it. It was just a small inquisitiveness. Thank you for your answer!
@@llucrescu9058; I recently had the opportunity to acquire a well used Rega Planet 2000 CD player offered to me by the car-less owner on the condition that I would be his chauffeur on a out of town trip to pick up a kitten in a village. Not a bad deal!
Connecting it I was totally astounded by the quality of reproduction offered by this Rega model, which in regards of detail and clarity throws new light on recordings that I thought that I knew. Good audio does matter!
Until you made the recommendation to listen to the Jochum Brahms recordings, I had forgotten them. They are some of the best on the market. They have the freedom and breathing of Furtwängler and the ensemble of Szell. Celi always bored me.
If you think cult of Celibidache is bad, the cult of Wim Winters makes you go back to Celi's recordings.
😅🤣🤣🤣🤣
I agree with every word in this video!
Hello David I would like to know your opinion about I Musici and the upcoming box set of analogue Recordings, thanks.
I always enjoyed their work, but we'll see how it sounds. I can't prejudge. I have to hear it.
@@DavesClassicalGuide thanks
Extremely informative, thank you. I will say however that when I was a much younger man, my first hearing of Beethoven’s Leonore 3, and Prokofiev’s symphony 1/Classical, were both from the “historical” circa 1948 BPO collection, and I really loved them and continue to do so. Perhaps it’s just because it was my first exposure. His subsequent Munich renderings of much of the classical repertoire I find unnecessarily painfully slow, eg Mozart 40, Beethoven 6. Zombie performances.
That Sibelius 5 was truly horrible. Musicians should play musically, not philosophically. Great musicians show respect and love for the music. Musical philosophers only respect and love their egos, and, of course, what ever praise their cultists lavish on them. Navel-gazing and good performance are usually incompatible.
My take from this video is not that variety is a virtue, but that objectivity is. Nonetheless, I found your comments valuable. Thank you.
Variety is inevitable. Taste is not.
Strangely you can find more Celibidaches documentaries on YT than Karajan docus, not mentioning many other first class conductors where you'll find an interview as best. I watched the newest documentary about him and there was not a single word of critique about his slow approach, far better, his slowness wasn't even mentioned.
It may not be directly related to the matter, but there are two things that make me scratch my head when reading through various classical music forums. Two kinds of people who think they found ultimate wisdom and therefore are superior to us ordinary mortals:
1. "After hearing the Beethoven symphonies by Gardiner I will never listen to any conductor who doesn't play them in the correct tempo. How could I even bother with that boring shit like Karajan, Szell or Klemperer." I don't comment this, it speaks for itself.
2. People who look down contemptuously on others who think that the production of an opera should be in line with its musical and lyrical content and when an faithful production is mentioned in the forum they just answer "oh this old boring shit is so full of cliches". I'm personally turned off seeing Parsifal playing in prison with a stage crowded with policemen or any other 19th century opera playing in a subway or the Ring, where every characters is made up like a clown. I think modern Regietheater brings out more abominations than benefits. But according to the defenders of Regietheater the ones who don't like it don't have the intellect to understand it and live in the past anyway. Maybe this would be an interesting topic for a future video, if you like.
If you want to hear Celibidache at his best hear his pre-1955 recordings or live performances. Once he got involved in this Buddhist trauma the whole musical work became completely ruined. In those days he was very promising.
Ivo Pogorelich is an artist who is remarkably similar to Celibidache. Both pick apart the works they play by playing EVERYTHING at least half tempo and indiscriminately highlighting often trivial bits of material, and both have spawned similarly crazed pseudo-spiritual fanbases. Just because somebody expresses something in a novel way doesn't mean it's good, unless, I suppose, you worship the concept of them having created that novel idea. The novelty of the idea, according to such a person, would necessarily facilitate a new understanding of the world. This fact, independent of the quality of the art determined by the generally accepted and internalized criteria of the art form/genre, would mean to such a person that the art must necessarily be the mark of a genius. In fact, for this person, it is when a piece of art seemingly cannot be adequately judged based on the current criteria that that art has true value. It is when the value structures are questioned that the appreciation comes. I think that oftentimes it is due to this sort of reasoning that one decides to worship figures such as Pogorelich or Celibidache, not because they actually enjoy (or experience) the emotional reaction that the music had been written to evoke (if that was indeed the intention of the music). This is not to say that one cannot get real enjoyment out of either's interpretations (I like recordings of both), it is just that when a cult gathers around something, I question whether the admiration stems from the art itself, or a collective intellectual exercise with the art as its subject.
Tout cela est vrai et méritait d'être dit. Merci.
Having several thoughts about this matter I'll mention just one.
Wondering why haven't you mentioned one quality that Celibidache is entirely lacking - leaving spaces between sounds or silences within which music is flowing. This is one of the main qualities that give music air and tension, even if tempo may be extremely slow. His interpretations sound as if he wanted to suffocate compositions he conducted. For instance his Haydn got literally strangled...
But he is interesting. And this is a point.
Herpes is interesting. Is that the point?
@@DavesClassicalGuide This is a funny and interesting question. But herpes is not interesting, at last not for me. I never looked a video about herpes on youtube. And unfortuntely you didn' t make anything about it.
@@gregorprozesky Nice try.
I personally really enjoy Celibidache's live recordings but his style is idiosyncratic as can be.... a bit like Glenn Gould but their style is like the polar opposite; Gould was cerebral to the extreme, whereas Celibidache was spiritual to the extreme. By the way, an identical quasi-Messianic cult exists around the Hungarian pianist Ervin Nyiregyházi.
Try pointing out there are better Bach pianists than Glenn Gould, if you really want to stir up a hornet's nest.
Finally someone who unleashes so many passions is bound to be interesting.
Or just really, really bad.
I totaly agree. This is a cult, like a religion. But you want to believe him when you listen what he says. It makes you feel good. The slow tempo works on Bruckner. The rest is weird.
Thank you Dave for being a voice of reason in the industry, and please keep up the good work!
Thank you, David, for this long overdue and well presented rant. It's about time someone went after Celi Cult, and you did it well.
Very interesting. This is much needed today, open, honest, respectful presentation of one’s point of view.
Sam the record man in downtown toronto actually had a "bootleg" section of his recordings. Always wondered who was this guy. Why buy a dubious copy when somebody i heard of is releasing the same stuff. In the internet age i found out he had a following.
Several years ago, I discovered an interview on RUclips of Celibidache discussing his philosophy of music. Not being a musician or a philosopher, I thought that the interview would still be of interest. On the contrary, I could not interpret anything the man said. Complete gobbledygook. Still love his Bruckner, though.
...And when the Celi Cult meshes with the Bruckner Cult - whoa !!!, we got a party.
Thankfully, Bruckner was such a great composer that he didn't need Celibidache to be appreciated and loved everywhere ... 😉
I LEARN from you - Thank You
Wonderful talk Dave. Thanks so much. Sincere serious musicians abhor the cult of personality & some have had their lives almost ruined by it ("but these people don't even know me" was the rather naive comment of one famous singer plagued by "fans"). Others seem to cultivate the attention & the following. There's a fun analysis of the whack job dynamics in Freud's Group Psychology & the Analysis of the Ego. I recently met a fellow music lover in London who after a concert kindly invited me home for a coffee. The feature wall of his listening room displayed some 15 signed photographs of Kna... hmmmm
I think a BIG part of Karajan's leaving the BPO was over a similarly "misogynistic controversy" surrounding clarinetist EXTRODINAIRE Sabine Meyer. Karajan hired Miss Meyer in 1982; one of the first female musicians to join the BPO... but the all-male Berliners - displaying, spectacularly, for ALL the world to see, their collective sissified insecurity as males of the species! - voted AGAINST her permanent tenure (by a vote of 73-4... claiming that her "tone was incompatible" with the more astute members of the He-Man clarinet section!). After 9 agonizing months in the BPO, Meyer left that fetid organization (🖕held firmly aloft!) to become one of the world's premiere clarinet soloists, making a string of fabulous recordings for EMI (HA, and double HA, say I!). After such a thorough display of "male chauvinism trumps music," Karajan's relationship with the BPO was never the same again (Karajan did, in fact, have two daughters!)... and in only 6 years, he too resigned his position with the... er... orchestra... making his final recording NOT with the BPO, but with their great Austrian rivals, the Wiener Philharmoniker. Oh, the sweet IRONY of it all! Mike D.
I remember this affair garnered quite a bit of coverage at the time in the UK press.
The other irony is that much of that attitude on the part of the orchestra seems to have been caused indirectly by Karajan's total control over it. By the late 1980s, the BP was certainly no longer the force it had been ten years before.
Although it was framed in terms of the orchestra's silly male chauvinism, which was certainly a factor too, the politics of the situation revolved around the orchestra's resentment of Karajan's usurping of their traditional right to have a say in new appointments. Meyer, as you point out, was eminently qualified, but Karajan had no right to hire her on his unilateral authority.
It's "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations". Sad that I know this.
Why? That's great stuff. I knew it, sort of.
Much thanks for the image of Celibidache conducting Beethoven naked smothered with whipped cream.
Appeal to authority is the biggest problem facing classical music performers, I feel. When musicians no longer feel like they can trust their own point of views on music, and instead resort to aping their favorite(or most revered) interpretation, you get phony and disingenuous performances
Hardly anything could be more alien to me than devoting myself body and soul to some artist however good he or she may be. Art - as well as science for that matter - should be about searching, not about claiming to have found something supposedly ultimate. I love listening to different kind of interpretations of my favorite works. I may not like all of them equally (how could I), but that's what makes this hobby so continuously interesting.
You obviously are more knowledgeable about music than I am, but your offensive comments and opinions are highly questionable. I have listened to Bruckner almost on a daily basis for the last 30 years, and I have found his interpretations of Bruckner as among the very best. The slow tempi can be shocking at first, sometimes they seem inappropriate, but in many cases they really do bring the complexity, depth and greatness of the music to new levels. It's easy to be a critique of music (or of wine, or anything else), much harder to actually create or perform it. I like your channel and frank opinions, but this one is a real low.
Oh well, can't win 'em all (although it would have helped had you paid attention to what I actually said). I'm a big fan of Celi's Bruckner.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks for pointing this out. Yeah, maybe I got picked by your comments on Celi and then ignored the rest. "Relieved" that you are a fan of Celi's Bruckner. To be honest, I never listened to anything from Celi that is not Bruckner. So yeah, maybe my focus was a bit narrow here.
@@fredericperrin3279 I appreciate your honesty about what you have heard, but am mildly appalled that you would comment on the basis of what you haven't.
I used to force myself to listen to him, convinced he would help me find a deeper meaning with his slogging tempos, but he never did. Ultimately it occurred to me-if you don’t like it, stop listening!
The proof that the man intrigues and interests, your video has a good number of views, even better than your other videos which are usually a success
As you do, I like some of his Bruckner; but in light of the cult raves, I started listening to some of his other youtube videos of other composers and was less than impressed and even distressed at what he did with some works.
Let's be real here, there is no chance in hell he rejected recordings because of his philosophy. He just first heard how his performances suck and then he invented a philosophy to excuse himself and to cope. Just like how people praise performances on ridiculous grounds. For example, my music history teacher praised Celi's Pictures at an exhibition because the Promenade goes at a walking pace which is idiomatic. Yeah, because we all know THAT IS WHY HE DID IT. If it was called A Sprint through the Gallery he would still take that damn tempo and we all know it.
amazing story about the cult of personnality and funny to...oh my god ...i d,ont beleive that....and for the TEMPO.....so one other amazing story....you know certainely mr hurwitz....when leonard bernstein want to conduct the first piano concerto of brahms with glenn gould,,he made a speech before and he tell '' i gone to adopt the tempo of mr gould for this concerto''....and this is incredible ...when he recording the same concerto with krystian zimmerman for dgg....bernstein adopt the same tempo of glenn gould.....amazing story in the history of music.....!
The selectivity axiom put forward in this video certainly seems sound. As already was mused in The Good Book: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1. Thess, V, 21)!
As for Celi's pseudophilosophy, in my book it runs along with the superficiailty, one somewhat always senses with Karajan (the person that is, not the musician!), when he touched upon extra-musical matters. To both of them the concept of humility seemed as remote as from here to the next galaxy. Karajan with the cult and entourage, while alive - Celi even more dead than alive.
And whilst at it: zen hasn't much to do with being intolerably slow, as Peter Maag proved to a 't' - both before and after his time spent in a monastery garden!
One of the Celi recordings, I cherish, though, didn't make it to Dave's top 5. It's not for everyday listening, but I like to tag along the promenade through his Pictures at an Exhibition - and, boy, that Great Gate of Kiev is IMMENSELY GRAND! 😁
David -- I agree with your assessment of Celibidache completely. Most of the performances I've heard either border on the absurd or are over the border. Consider his Fledermaus Overture. Can any sane person believe that his tempo is Allegro Vivace? His Sibelius En Saga is contrary to what Sibelius wrote in so many ways, including his long accelerando at the end that Sibelius did not requrest. On and on. And, of course, Carlos Kleiber disliked both the man and his work (and wrote that very funny letter supposedly from Toscanini in heaven about Celibidache, telling him he "sucked"). Every now and then you find a Celibidache performance that is convincing, mostly Bruckner.
As for the Celi crazies, agree there too. Much like most cults, the operative word is "crazy".
Celi obviously had a Cult following. His overly Slow tempos drove me crazy! He never observed the composer s intentions ie: Tempo markings.He,and He alone Dictated the tempos. He would have better suited being a Dictator in some country that accepted Dictators
Bravo. Celi was one of the biggest phonies in music. His cultists are really lost. Beyond help.
Do you think that was the reason why Celibidache was so good at Bruckner? Because of the non positive aspects of the music of Bruckner that were so loved by Celi.
Hi Dave. I'm sorry you have to deal with celibidache cultists. I find them and the worship of their hero so tiresome. There is a strain of them within our Bruckner cult. A cult within a cult. I've had to cut of one of them after I said his recording of Bruckners 9th isn't profound just very slow. Yes you may hear inner details in the score, but so what. His tempo reminds me of my beginning study of a piano work where I go pretty slow. I joke to my wife, im not slow, im profound! Classical music has many of theses artist cults. Many elevate composers themselves to near deities, worshiping them as superman. As I've aged, I've less patience for it all.
Paul G
In interviews, Celibidache trashed many, if not all, of the other conductors with name recognition, starting with Bernstein and ending with Karajan. Never trust such a person.
Yes, he even reffered to Karajan as "this young man" in one interview I saw. Karajan was 8 years older than him. I think that encapsulates it LOL
There's no concept more perplexing to me than the worship of an individual, particularly a deceased one. What merit is there in the mindless (and often times, venomous) defense of one's hero? Surely it can't be for attention, if their hero is dead -- and even if that weren't the case, I doubt Mr. Celibidache would take notice of all their screeching and gnashing of teeth, anyways.
I wouldnt be surprised if you received death threats. He isnt the first strange conductor, but even Stokowski didnt have this kind of cult following. "Celi' didnt discourage it, but I dont know how much he consciously developed the cult. With few recordings , it added to his mystique. Saw him once on tour with his orchestra. The crowd was ecstatic, the performance: meh, whatever. The strings were very loud. Thats my only memory.
I was just telling my brother that I was slowly discovering that he is over rated. If it wasn't for all the RUclips videos of his recordings, I never would have discovered that his performances are so slow that a lot of them just limp along. Glad to know I'm not the only who feels this way.
Dave, in a book authored by composer Bengt de Törne, Mr. Törne claimed Sibelius said, "Remember, a statue has never been set up in honour of a critic!" I dare say Celibidache's followers are not going to build you a statue! The Sibelius quote seemed to be apt for this situation. I have a lifetime experience in the arts are whether the artist belongs to the cult of academic modernism or the cult of Celibidache, the person usually lacks imagination. I endured academic ax grinders in art college and without a doubt, they made the worst art that was worthy of only being used as a doormat. Cultists exist everywhere and there characteristics are similar.
Yes, that Sibelius quotation has been cited billions of times, and unsurprisingly it happens to be wrong.
Though Eduard Hanslick has a handsome bust in the Arkandenhof in Vienna.
Fun name, bad conductor.
Thank you for this video and your honesty. The "anthill" needs to be more than poked, but I'll try and show some propiety.
👉🏻⛰️🐜
Love that graphic.