Ansermet Interview
ansermetniac
in MS -Word Format
http://members.aol.com/abbedd4/eainterview.doc
_______________
Ansermetniac disclaimer--I may have the Ansermetnia badly, but I did not
type this interview into my computer. I photostated it and put it in my
sheet fed scanner and used OCR software to create text. Type this in? I
am not that Meshuga!!!!
________
ROBERT CHESTERMAN: I photosted d scanner and usedMr. Ansermet, may I
begin in a biographical sense
and ask, first of all, if your parents were at all musical?
ERNEST ANSERMET: Oh yes, my mother was singing and I was
playing piano, because she came from a family of peasants who were
living in the north of the Canton de Valid, on the Jura. The whole
family of these peasants were all musicians. My great-grandfather had
seven sons and each one played two instruments, one wood instrument
and one string instrument. I learned myself the clarinet with my uncle
and the piano with my mother, and the violin with a violin of my great-
grandfather; also, my father had a wonderful bass voice. So I was born
in the music, and I must tell you I am always a little shocked when I
see so many critics write: Mr. Ansermet was a mathematician who then
later became a musician. It is quite wrong! I was a musician from my
childhood. I was first a musician.
But the question is this: first of all I was rather lazy about technical
questions. When I was playing the piano or violin, instead of working
on the technique, I invented melodies, and so I could not make a
career as a pianist or a violinist. And in our country at that time it
was
impossible to live from music, even if I would have been a good
composer. So I had to choose another way to make a living and I chose
the way of mathematics master.
You grew up in Switzerland, here in Suisse Romande country, didn't you?
Oh yes, in Vevey.
Is it true that the people who come from Suisse Romande are very
painstaking,
patient, rather conservative people?
No, they have much temperament. There is a very great difference
between the Canton de Valid and Geneva'. In Geneva they are intel-
lectual people, critical people; but in my country, Valid, they are all
peasants. So they have much temperament and they are also very free
in their meaning, and I think that is what gives us more vitality than
the people of Geneva.
When did you actually turn to conducting as such in a professional
sense?
Well, during my university days beside mathematics I was always
practising music, studying harmony, counterpoint, and all that is
important in music. I knew by memory the score of a symphony by
Beethoven when I was already a student. And so I was ready. I had
little hope in my composing, but I had great aspiration to conduct,
always. But I didn't believe it would be possible.
But when I was teaching in the college of Lausanne, the pupils of
this college formed an orchestra that I had to conduct. Then I had the
chance to go to Germany to observe the great conductors, and that is
the time in Berlin when I saw Mottl and Nikisch.
Is it possible for you to summarize what you feel about conducting as an
art?
Yes, I think I have on this point rather old ideas.
You know, for me conducting is not a profession. The profession for
me is to be a musician first of all. And if the musician can conduct,
then it is a function and he is called to conduct. For instance, a man
cannot decide to become a general or to become a statesman, but he
can decide to become a soldier or to become a politician. Depending
on his chances and merits, then he will be called one day to be a
general, or a statesman. So it was in the old time.
For us, conducting came not from teaching.-We didn't learn conduct-
ing in my generation in the classroom but in the workshop, in the
workshop of practical music. All the conductors of or about my gener-
ation, Furtwangler, Klemperer, Kleiber, and others, did not have
lessons in conducting. But we had models. For instance, the young
conductors who were devoted to opera worked in an opera house as an
assistant conductor, as an accompanist of the choir, as a soloist, and
then they were formed. This kind of quite practical formation was
possible because at that time all the music was in three or four and the
technique of conducting three bars or four bars is very easy; in one
hour you know everything. So the question of technical conducting
was not a problem for us. Of course, when we had seen how our
models, Nikisch or Mottl or others, were conducting, the question was
if we had the freedom of gesture for doing it. That was the whole
Question.
I have a friend who is a great composer
and he wanted to conduct, but he was unable to make a gesture of the
arm without making at the same time a gesture with the body. So the
players did not know which was the good gesture: the gesture of the
body or the gesture of the arm which followed!
The Italians are very often good conductors because they speak with
the hands. They have these expressive gestures which is the fact of
conducting. But came Stravinsky, and instead of having bars in three
or four he had these irregular bars, unequal cadences-five-sixteenths,
three-sixteenths, two-sixteenths-and a constant change of bars. Then
the technique was more complicated and more subtle.
I began my career just at this moment. I was the first to introduce
these Stravinsky rhythms in- Paris, in London, in Berlin-where I
conducted the first German performance of The Rite of Spring in 1922-
and I had to invent this new technique. And as it was rather difficult
then the young conductors began to ask for lessons, and this method of
teaching conducting in lessons directed the attention of the conductor
on the technique, not on the music! Then came a second element,
especially in North America, where the conductors had to perform
before a public which was not educated in music, and they had a
certain role to play in order to convince. And they became showmen,
giving more importance to the gesture they were giving to the public
than to the gesture they were giving to the players. For my part, I
think
I can say I have never made a gesture which was not necessary for the
players; I have never played to the public. The public could receive
the music, and I hope understand it, but the question was the players.
Could -you say what is the most difficult thing for a conductor to
convey to his
player ?
The conductor cannot explain to the players how they have to play,
because they know their instruments better than the conductor. But he
has to indicate to them what they cannot know: the phrasing, the right
accent, the right tempo, and the right sonorous value they are to give
to their notes, because there are voices in the orchestra which remain
in the shadow and other voices which have to be put in the light. That
is the task of the conductor.
Out of these various points you mention, would you say the most
difficult thing
of all, perhaps, to convey properly to an orchestra is that of rhythm?
Yes. The whole question is that the conductor must understand that
the musical time is not a metric time. That is contrary to what is
taught in many schools, because they see always the written beat; but
every beat is already a cadence. The beat is only marked by a crotchet
or a dotted crotchet. In the first case the crotchet is the value of two
quavers. In the second the dotted crotchet has the value of three
quavers, and so it is already a cadence. So the single beat of the con-
ductor indicates the cadence, and that is the first question. The
conductor doesn't beat the time, he beats the cadence. That is the
point.
Now, the tempo has to be felt. It is not a matter of metronome, it is a
matter of musical feeling. The musical feeling develops in a certain
tempo and this tempo is indicated by the conductor, or by his gesture-
by this cadence.
When you conduct, do you always conduct with a score ?
Yes, generally. I think it is impossible to conduct really a work
without knowing by memory, by heart, the score, because you can
only conduct a score well if you know the music perfectly, and so you
must have studied it and you know how it is made. You know the form,
you know in each moment where you are going and when it will stop,
and so on, and how it is phrased. But I am against conducting by
memory , because it leads one to conduct the principal melodic line and
to forget the secondary voices.
Whfen you were talking earlier, you touched on conductors whom you had
seen
as ayoung man. You mentioned Nikisch and you mentioned Mottl. Could you
tell
me what it was about Nikisch that particularly struck you ?
Nikisch was a great virtuoso of the orchestra. He was profoundly a
musician. That is why his conducting was so efficient. But he had a
manner of conducting which is not ours today. He was conducting
always before the time. You see, he had no up-beat; he gave the beat
and the musicians followed. That is the first example of what happened
later with Furtwangler, who gave the beat and the moment after came
the playing. It was very difficult for a conductor like myself to
conduct
the Philharmonic in Berlin because they had this habit.
Sir Adrian Boult says that with .Nikisch it was all in the stick, that
the stick
conveyed everything. Would you agree?
No, it is not quite right. Of course, he cultivated the music from his
time and his taste. For example, he was the man who introduced
Tchaikovsky in Germany; but he was also the greater interpreter of
Beethoven and all the Classics.
Coming back to Weingartner-he really started the reaction, didn't he,
against this Romantic kind of conducting ?
Yes, against the kind of Romantic conducting which emphasized the
sentimentality of the music. Weingartner had a more Classical feeling,
more rigorous in the form.
This particularly attracted you ?
Yes, and it has remained in my conducting.
It is an intellectual thing really ?
It is not quite an intellectual thing. It is a question of taste and
also
of feeling. You know, many critics feel that the conductor gives feeling
in the music only when the conductor's feeling is emphasized: extensive
and exaggerated, for instance, in a crescendo, diminuendo, rallentando.
But the feeling is everywhere in music. You do not need to exaggerate.
If you play the music right, there is always feeling.
When did you first meet Toscanini?
In 193O, in Berlin. I was there with the Russian Ballet for the first
musical festival of Berlin, and Toscanini was with La Scala. We met.
And again, later, in Lucerne-he was called to initiate the musical
weeks of Lucerne during the summer. The first concert was conducted
by Toscanini in Triebschen, the house of Wagner, where he conducted
the Siegfried Idyll in the same orchestral disposition that Richter had
done before. The same day we had an orchestral concert where I had
to conduct a Haydn symphony and La Valse of Ravel. Toscanini was
so satisfied with my Valse that he told me, 'You must conduct that in
America.' And after the last war he called me to the NBC to conduct a
concert during his holidays, and then I conducted La Valse.
How did you find the NB C orchestra at that time ?
Fantastic; the best orchestra I have ever conducted. Well, since then
we had a master orchestra in London, the Philharmonia, which was
formed by Walter Legge. I don't yet know the New Philharmonia. I
will conduct this New Philharmonia in November when I have to re-
record the Firebird ballet in the original scoring. This ballet is
extremely
difficult to play for the orchestra. The writing of Stravinsky is very
complicated, very subtle. I think you must have a first-rate orchestra
for playing it. That is why I asked to make this record for Decca with
the New Philharmonia.
To come back, I f I may, to Toscanini. Were you unreservedly an admirer
?
Well, I adored Toscanini as a person and he was so purely a musician.
He would think only of the music. Now I could not agree always with
his tempi. They were on the fast side because he believed in the written
music. I mean he would be true to what is written, always. What is
written indicates something, but it is not the real thing; it is
something
different, you know. I will give you an example. I had made a record
of the Prague Symphony. He heard the record and at the Andante he
said, 'Much too slow.' I told him, 'But how? That is an Andante.'
'No, it is a dance,' he said. So I could not agree. But I understood
that
for him it was so. He played what he felt. But, of course, he was
marvelous in a lot of musical works. For instance, all the Italian
opera.
When somebody has heard Toscanini conducting Verdi or Puccini, he
has heard the ideal.
He was very objective, wasn't he?
Very objective, very objective. I can give you another example. I had
to conduct his NBC orchestra in the First Suite of Bach, with the Aria.
In this Aria comes a moment when we usually make an appoggiatura.
But the appoggiatura is not written by Bach. So when I made an
appoggiatura, he told me, 'I don't make this appoggiatura; it is not
written.' I could not immediately answer. But I went to the library in
New York and got the book of Quantz, the flute player who has
written how the music of Bach should be played. He wrote this: 'It is
not only necessary to -make-an appoggiatura when it is written, but
also when good taste indicates it; and, for instance, if all the vo1ces
come on a perfect harmony, it is good to postpone this harmony by an
appoggiatura from the high or the low note.' I brought this text to
Toscanini. I told him that was why I made the appoggiatura. He told
me, 'Too difficult for me.' He was a simple man !
I read that he planned everything very carefully in his rehearsals so
that there
really wasn't much room.for error in a performance.
Oh yes, it was all fixed. When he had rehearsed it was fixed, and the
performance was exactly the same as the last rehearsal.
I want to ask you how you approach your rehearsals ?
It is about the same. My point is not the exact technical playing. It
is the exact expression of the music. I try to reach this level of
expression ,
in my rehearsal and then it is ready for the performance.
I would still like to touch on the subject of younger conductors. Do you
have
many opportunities to hear any of them?
I have heard Bernstein and Maazel.
Could I ask you for your impressions ;
I appreciate immensely Bernstein. I think he is a very great musical
talent. But it is a question of attitude. He has taken this attitude of
showman. I saw him when he was conducting the Passion of Bach. He
was really making the mimic of Jesus on the Cross. He was suffering
like Jesus. So we had two messages: the message of the music, which
was expressing the suffering of Jesus, and the message of the mimic of
Bernstein. I did not know if I should see, or hear. I hope he will
under-
stand one day that this is absolutely unuseful.
With Maazel the question is no more the question of showmanship.
The question then is technical approach to the music. His attention is
directed towards the exactitude of this quaver, this crotchet, this
pause,
and so on.
We were talking about objective Playing. Pierre Boulez made the comment
that scores must now be interpreted in the spirit of the time.
It is quite wrong! They should be interpreted in the spirit of the
composer! That is, of the time of the composer, of course. It is quite
wrong. It is exactly the same as Stravinsky. Stravinsky believed in the
exactitude of the metronome mark. Two years ago I was in Hamburg
conducting at the Opera, where the Intendant is Liebermann. Lieber-
mann came from Los Angeles, where he had visited Stravinsky in order
to ask him questions about The Rake's Progress, and he told me that
Stravinsky had said to him, 'Tell your conductor not to observe too
much my metronome marks, because after all he must find for himself
the right movement.' So, arrived at eighty-four years of age, Stravinsky
was changing his mind !
M.r Ansermet, people think of you so much for the first performances
that you
gave in this incredible period-the Stravinsky works, Prokofiev, Manuel
de
Falla's Three-Cornered Hat-and yet I think they tend to overlook the
fact
that you have a vast repertoire. Do you ever feel that your attention to
the Classics
is overlooked?
Well, the point is this. At that time when I was beginning to conduct
it was in very important situations with Diaghilev and the Russian
Ballet. We performed The Rite of Spring for the first time after the war
;
before, it was only conducted once by Monteux, that's all. And then
there was Apollon Musagete, Les Noces, Renard, and so on. I was so
absorbed by this new task of conducting that I could not at the same
time be devoted to the Classics. I have never neglected the Classics,
but
I had to employ my forces for this new music, the music of Stravinsky ,
Prokofiev, Ravel, Debussy, and then Hindemith and Bart6k. But, of
course, the day came when this was completed. I had resolved the
problems. I knew how to do them, and so I could come back and bring
to maturity my feelings about the Classics. That is why I have given so
much importance in the last ten or twenty years to my interpretation
of the Classics.
T urning to this matter of repertoire, I wonder if the Classical
repertoire makes
the greatest demands upon a conductor ?
The greatest demand in the matter of interpretation, but not in the
matter of technique. Of course, modern works make a great demand in
technical matters: the rhythm and harmony are more complicated, the
tempo is more often changing, and so on. In Classical music we have an
equal tempo, the polyphony is not too complicated, the chords are
simple. But then the whole point is the interpretation, the feeling-the
musical feeling.
As one gets older, does one have to confine one's repertoire more ?
Schnabel, in
his biography, said that in his last years he had to live what he termed
the
intensive life-that he would only Play Beethoven sonatas, Schubert piano
works ,
and some Mozart. Do you find that you have to confine yourself?
No, I do not. But I think I am more able to do these works today
because I have acquired this maturity and so I have a special interest
in playing Classical music.
You conduct Haydn a lot, don't you?
Oh yes, very much. We are coming back to Haydn. I spoke very
often with Furtwangler about that. He told me, 'You know, to my
mind, Haydn is more of a symphonic composer than Mozart. The sense
of symphony is to be found in Haydn.' That is also my point of view
today. That is why, as the 'London' symphonies by Haydn were all
recorded by Sir Thomas Beecham, I recorded the 'Paris' symphonies
which came before and are absolutely marvellous.
Interpretatively, they are not as difficult though, are they, as, say,
the last three
great Moz:art symphonies ?
Well, it is another kind of difficulty. The last Mozart symphonies
depend very much on the right feeling of the C major, G minor, E flat.
With the Haydn symphonies, the spirit of the symphony has to be
found in them and to be realized by the interpretation.
We were talking just a moment ago about this great period when all
these
ballets were being performed. I read that Pierre Monteux, who also was
conducting
a lot of ballets at this time-as he conducted the first performance of
The Rite of
Spring-made the comment that he had never thought of himself as
becoming a
ballet conductor.
It was just an opportunity? Oh yes, it is true.
How did you feel yourself about conducting ballet ?
Well, I was rather more inclined to the ballet than Monteux, because
Monteux was a quartettiste. He was playing Classical quartets and he
was a viola soloist in Paris. But I was always attracted by music where
the rhythm has a special importance. That is why, for instance, I was
conducting very much Russian music, but the Russian music of the
North-Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin. And that is why I became a
friend of Stravinsky, because Stravinsky came to my concert in
Montreux and heard me playing Rimsky, and he told me, 'Well, I see
that.' And many Russians have told me, even when I was in Russia,
that I had the sense of Russian music on the rhythmical side.
T o come back to The Rite of Spring. Do 1 understand that Pierre Monteux
conducted a concert version after the premiere in I9IJ and then
Stravinsky
revised the work ?
Monteux conducted this concert version and then I proposed to
Stravinsky to revise the final dance, because he had written the final
dance ill bars like five-sixteenths and if it is not clearly indicated
the
conductor doesn't know what to do. So I suggested to Stravinsky to
make a new reduction by dividing these bars into their exact com-
ponents. I still have my sketch. I sent it to Stravinsky. He approved
and a new print was made.
After the First World War , perhaps in 1920 , one day I got a cable
from Diaghilev in Paris: 'I am preparing The Rite of Spring with choreo-
graphy by Massine aux Champs-Elysees-do come and conduct.' I
went immediately to Paris. I was ready, I knew the work very well,
and we did this reprise of The Rite of Spring. Then we played it in
London, and then I had to play it in many concerts, especially in
Berlin. This was the first performance in Germany, in 1922 .
When-you did that performance at the Champs-Elysees, people must have
gone
bearing in mind what had happened in I9I3 . Were you aware of any
feeling of
tension in the audience when you conducted ?
In these first years there was still a certain tension, but far away
from
the tension of 191 3. First of all, because I think the work was better
than the choreography of Nijinsky ; better also because the hearers had
already absorbed the new turn of music the new harmonies.
I think that with many people it is the rather impersonal detached
quality of
Stravinsky's music that they find hard to come to terms with.
Well, it is always hard in the beginning. But with more knowledge of
the music you accept it, you know. For me, the only question with
Stravinsky was this: his music is excellent, but in the way he will do
it
-I mean make it-his music is not the same thing as the music of
other composers before him. For the Romantic and for the Classical
composers) it was always an expression of their own feelings. For
Debussy) it was also the impression of the expression of his own
feelings
about nature, and so on. But with Stravinsky, no. It is a
representative,
a figurative music. It is an application. And this application of the
music to such pictorial effects or representative intention is
wonderfully
realized.
But we must state that there is not the same human value as in music
which is the expression of the man. That is the point on which we
disagree. I admire immensely all that he does. It is always perfect, his
technique) his writing, and his conception. But I don't like his
aesthetic.
And the aesthetic was .always our point of discussion. It is the point
where we disagreed, completely. That is why he was very angry with
me after these discussions. But some years ago we have made again
friendship.
There came a proposition from New York asking me to conduct one
of the concerts in the Stravinsky Festival at the Lincoln Center. It was
two years ago) and first I said I could not go because I had something
else to do. But they insisted, telling me it was the wish of Stravinsky
that I conduct this concert of Persephone. So I said, 'If it is the wish
of
Stravinsky, I will come.' And I went. Unfortunately, Stravinsky was
ill and could not come to New York, but I wrote him a letter telling
him about the concert and telling him how satisfied I was to have
conducted. Then he wrote to me saying how our disagreement was
very painful for him until now, but with my letter he was quite cured.
Discussions of style and form crop up frequently with Stravinsky's music
and
I know you have written very vividly on orchestral style, so may I ask
you the
question: what is style?
I mean by orchestral style the way players approach the music. If a
conductor comes to an orchestra as a guest conductor, he has no time
to train the orchestra or to educate the orchestra. He has just to beat
as he can and to obtain from the orchestra what he can obtain. But if
somebody is a regular conductor, as I was with my orchestra in Geneva,
he has to educate the orchestra. You can educate it in different ways.
You can look for the external effect, for the technical perfection, for
the
brilliance of the sonority, and so on. Or you can look for the right
phrasing, the right accentuation, the right tempo and the right sonorous
value of every voice. That is style. The manner you approach the
orchestra, so you approach the music.
There are several kinds of orchestras. There are orchestras trained
for being brilliant, technically brilliant, and others which are trained
for giving more the truth of the music, the expression of the music.
There are other orchestras, namely in Germany, which are trained for
giving always-as in Vienna-sentimentality. Every phrase is senti-
mental, is expressive in this sense. But I don't like sentimentality in
all
music. If, for instance, I have to playa work by -Debussy in Vienna
with the Vienna Philharmonic, which is a first-rate orchestra, I have
great difficulty. I was never able to obtain a perfect performance of
the
Firebird Suite-the Suite of 1919-with the Vienna Philharmonic,
because they had not the equality of sound and the exactitude of
rhythm that is required for this music.
So the style is different. The style of the Vienna orchestra is not the
same as the Berlin Philharmonic, not the same as the Philharmonia in
London, not the same as the Orchestre de Paris, and so on.
I tried to give this style to my orchestra here, and this style was the
right expression, the right phrasing, not the effect but the inner truth
of the music. Of course, this applies to every composer. So we try to
give Beethoven the right spirit of Beethoven, or give Haydn the right
spirit, and so on. If you have another kind of conductor, you will hear
a symphony by Haydn and all the notes will be perfectly well done, but
Haydn ""ill be absent. The question is to feel Haydn through the
symphony, or to feel Beethoven or to feel Mozart or Debussy. I have
often heard Nuages or Fetes of Debussy as if it would be The Ride of the
Valkyries. But it is not the same!
Can -You recall your first meeting with Debussy ?
Oh yes. You know, I had two friends who were close friends of
Debussy, Robert Godet and my master Francisco de Lacerda. The
first time they introduced me to him was in a concert in Paris in 19 I o
where he was conducting the first performance of Rondes de Printemps.
And after the concert I went to him and we met in the artists' room and
spoke a little, and I could observe him with all the people who were
there.
But then in 1917, when I gave the first performance of Parade by
Erik Satie in Paris, with the Russian Ballet, he was there and he
invited me for the following afternoon. So I had a full afternoon with
him in his home on the Bois de Boulogne and, of course, ,then I had a
better acquaintance. We discussed many of the tempi of his works and
musical questions of the day and so on. For instance, I was asking him
some question about the Nocturnes. He took his score of the Nocturnes
and
I saw it was full of corrections with pencils of all colours-red pencil,
blue pencil, green pencil. I said, 'What is right ?' He told me, 'I
don't
know. Take the score with you and bring it back in a few days and say
what seems good to you.' So I have -made-for myself-a score of these
Nocturnes. That is why if you hear, for instance, my recording of them
you will see that the Sirenes don't sing what they sing in the other
recordings.
He was a man very reserved, you know, an aristocratic nature. I had
the impression always that he was apart from his surroundings. He
had few friendships. His only friendship was with the old Godet, who
was a friend since they were young, and Lacerda who came after. He
was very friendly with Satie and every week he took lunch with him.
But he had his opinion about Satie. He was not taking him for a great
musician but for a charming and an interesting man. I had the impres-
sion he was very alone, very solitaire.
He was rather short, wasn't he, in appearance? He wasn't a tall man.
Oh, he was about my height. No, he was not very short. When he
became older he was a little thicker than when he was young. But not
very much.
Very Bohemian in appearance ?
No, no, not at all! Very elegant. When I saw him for the first time
in a rehearsal he had a chapeau melon, the hat of the London people. He
was Bohemian when he was young; then he had a hat like the artiste,
and the necktie also. But later, no more-especially since he was the
husband of Mme Bardac.
It is interesting reading biographies of these famous figures of the
past. One
thing that I recall is that it was said that Debussy was always short of
money.
Yes, yes. He had always sorrows because, before his second marriage,
he was very poor; and after he had to pay a pension to his first wife.
So
it was rather difficult.
Do you think this shortage of money was, in a way , an inspiration to
him ?
No, not at all. I think it is never an influence on the writing of the
musician. When the musician makes music he is outside of his practical
life and the practical life is no influence on him-unless he is a bad
musician !
There are very contradictory accounts that one reads about Debussy's
character :
that he was shy yet outspoken, that he was a very independent man but an
envious
man.
There are very contradictrly accounts that one reads about Debussy's
character :
that he was shy yet outspoken, that he was a very independent man but an
envious
man.
Oh no, he was not envious at all. He was convinced of himself: He
had his way of seeing things, and he would not be disturbed by others.
But, of course, he could not be in harmony with people who were all
interested in the political or economic life. He was just for his music.
Did he have a sharp sense of humour ?
Oh yes, very sharp. And you can see it not only in his music-in some
of the Preludes, for instance-but also in his writings.
The best book on Debussy is by Dietschy. It is an excellent book and
gives really all details. It is published by the same publisher as my
book,
la Baconniere de Neuchatel.
Do you know the two volumes by Edward Lockspeiser ?
Yes, but Lockspeiser is a man who is looking for details and who
exaggerates on many points.
You mentioned that Debussy spoke of Satie . Did he mention Stravinsky at
all ?
Oh yes. At the time when Stravinsky gave Firebird and Petrushka in
Paris he was very enthusiastic about Stravinsky. But already he was
not so enthusiastic about his music as about his scoring. He said, 'He's
fantastic for the scoring.' And you find these expressions in the book
published by Robert Godet, with the letters of Debussy. So he was
enthusiastic about Petrushka. But when he heard The Rite of Spring he
already had some doubt. He told me, 'He is like a German who during
the war would make a beefsteak with wood.' Stravinsky believed that
one could make music with rhythm. It was real for the Negroes, but
not for us. And so he was already in doubt.
He played a duo-Piano performance of the Rite with Stravinsky.
Oh yes, and I heard it. I can show you the photograph here of
Debussy and Stravinsky together in the home of Debussy. He was
giving a testimony of his friendship and his admiration for Stravinsky
at that time. And he remained so, but with critical sense; of course, he
was not an adulator. But Stravinsky has interpreted that very badly in
his last books: he says Debussy was a wrong man, a liar, and so on. It
is quite wrong. All that Stravinsky said in his last book with Robert
Craft is terrible.
You did not do any first performances of Debussy's work, did you?
No, no. But he knew from Godet that I was playing much of his
music. I was conducting his works in Paris, after his death, and Mrs.
Debussy was there and told me how they appreciated this.
Were you living permanently in Paris at this time?
One year, 1928. I was conductor with Forestier with the OSP-
Orchestre Symphonique de Paris.
You weren't present at the first performance of Pelleas et Melisande,
then?
No. That was given in 1902. I went the following year to a Saturday
afternoon performance. But it was still with the same singers and the
same conductor, Messager. And I was at that time teaching mathe-
matics in Lausanne.
There was an enormous division at this time, wasn't there, between
admirers
and detractors of the opera ?
Oh yes, that was a real struggle. I t was what we call a coup monte, a
kind of organization against Pelleas .
Generally, though, with many people it's stilt unpopular even now. They
don't
seem to grasp the idiom.
I don't know. I think today people are tired not of Pelleas, but of
Maeterlinck. They find the music attractive, but Maeterlinck boring.
But I don't think so. I think the Maeterlinck words are so exactly the
words for this music that I accept them, without judging them from
the pure literary point of view.
Your last recording, which was very well reviewed by many, many people,
is
really your final statement on Pelleas?
I would do it again.
What sort of influence was Wagner, would you say , on Pelleas ?
The harmony of Debussy has been influenced by the harmony of
Wagner , especially Tristan and Parsifal.
The influence of Wagner was incredibly strong in Paris in those days,
wasn't it?
Much less on Debussy than on others. D'lndy or Dukas were more
influenced by Wagner than Debussy. Wagner was a revelation for
Debussy, but then from that he took what he would take and made his
own harmony, which is quite different. The melodic side was more in
the light. The melody is quite independent of the harmony, it develops
itself on any harmony. For instance, take the Prelude a I' Apres-Midi
d'un
Faune. You have the air of the flute and this melody, after being played
alone, comes on a D major chord and it is in E major; and it comes
later always on new harmonies, remaining the same. So the melody of
Debussy is independent in a certain way from the harmony which
accompanies it. And in this melodic line of Debussy, with many, many
works, you observe the pentatonic scale. Debussy chose it because it is
indeterminate tonally. In practising the pentatonic melody, his melody
was free and he could put any kind of harmony under the melody.
Mentioning the Prelude a I' Apies-Miai d;un Faune, at the premiere there
was a great deal of dissension over this work, wasn't there ?
Oh no, not at the premiere. The premiere was successful! It was
even encored. No, later I attended a performance of La Mer, conducted
by Debussy, when it was sifjle. I was struggling in the hall with some-
body who was whistling !
But Nijinsky caused a sensation, didn't he, with the choreography for
the
Prelude which he did with Diaghilev ?
Ah, but Diaghilev was quite unsatisfied with this choreography from
Nijinsky. He was not satisfied at all! Because, for Debussy, the faun
was
very flexible) and Nijinsky had made a quite mechanical choreography.
Debussy was not keen at all on Nijinsky doing the choreography. And
with Jeux when it was commissioned by Diaghilev he found the
choreography from Nijinsky had not sufficient fantasy. For him it was
a dream of a summer afternoon. With Nijinsky the erotic side came too
much in the light.
Was there a danger at this time in all these ballets that Diaghilev was
putting
on, of the dance overruling the music ?
There was always a tension between the choreographer and the
musician. I can tell you for instance when I conducted in London the
first performance of The Three-Cornered Hat by Falla I was taking the
last dance in the tempo Falla had given to me. And I had Massine
taking another tempo on the stage and Diaghilev behind my back
giving me another tempo telling me)'You are too slow y dear you
are too slow.' And I had to find the middle way!
May I turn to this matter of the influence on Debussy of the visual
arts. There
does seem to be great confusion over this. In one interview which you
gave for
High Fidelity Magazine you said that you didn't think that painting
influenced Debussy.
No not at all; much more poetry Mallarme Symbolism but not the
painting. In his home you could not find any Monet or such Impres-
sionistsnot at all. The label 'Impressionist' given to Debussy is quite
wrong. The point is this :
In the Classical time the music was an expression of feeling-joy
sadness and so on. With Debussy he was made in such a way that his
feeling was always a feeling of something which he expressed in music :
the clouds the water the moonlight. So you feel always in the music
of Debussy the thing which moves him-the melodic image of the
clouds the moonlight, and so on. So of course these melodies being
the feeling of something are an impression. But the music is not for
that Impressionist. Because it is full of harmony! And the harmony is
the feeling of these impressions. So it is a lyrical music. Debussy is
not
an Impressionist. He is a lyrical musician. The impressionism in his
music is only one exterior aspect of the music.
He was nevertheless interested in painting, because he went to London
and
saw pictures by T urner and he mentioned T urner in his correspondence
didn't he ?
What did you think of Debussy as an orchestrator?
Rimsky-Korsakov has made the remark that there are two kinds of
musician in regard to scoring: the one makes the score so that if you
just play the notes, you have everything; the other makes the score so
that it is not sufficient to play the notes, for you must play them in a
certain manner, in a certain feeling, in order to get the right sound.
Beethoven belongs to this last category, and Debussy too. You can play
Ravel exactly as written; it will sound. Not Debussy. With Debussy you
must first understand the music, and then arrange your performance
in order to realize the musical idea.
Do you think there is a great deal of difference between the
orchestration of the
early Nocturnes and the Images?
Well, in the Images it is more complicated. That is all. The Nocturnes
are very simple, but even the Nocturnes must be treated by the conductor
in the spirit of Debussy. If not, it may be quite wrong. I have heard
performances of Nuages and Fetes which were quite wrong. If, for
instance, with Nuages the conductor will make what we call 'expression',
it would be quite wrong. It must be a very quiet line, a pure line,
equal. Because the expression is in the line.
Which orchestral work gives you the greatest pleasure now ?
La Mer. But I gave- also with great pleasure Rondes de Printemps.
Rondes de Printemps is one of the most difficult works I know to
interpret.
It is terribly difficult. But it is marvellous. One day I had to conduct
Rondes de Printemps in Paris and Ravel told me, after the concert, 'It
was very good. You have done as well as possible with this bad
scoring.'
But I told him it is not badly scored. It is difficult to realize. That
is the
point. And now, you know, I have scored myself the Epigraphes Antiques,
which were written for two pianos, and I have tried to write them in the
style of Debussy.
At the end of his life, do you feel that Debussy would have continued
with the
revolutionary developments that he introduced earlier, or do you feel
there was a
falling off in his composition ?
For me, first of all, his creation was not revolutionary. I t was
creative-
He created a new world of music. He created new harmonies, new
ways of writing, a new style. The last sonata gives us an idea of what
he could have done after. But, you know, I think in our time a
composer cannot indefinitely compose. He comes to the day where
he has made what he had to do. Mozart was dead at thirty-five,
but he had given us about all that he could give. What could he give
more ? Another Don Giovanni, another Figaro ? But it would add nothing
essentiall to his works. I think all the composers have a certain limit
in
their possibility. When Debussy was composing, he was not like these
young men you have today, saying, 'I will make something new .' Not
at all! He would make something which would be good for him. But
not to be new.
M r A nsermet , would you say that it's very easy to talk about Debussy
?
No, it is extremely difficult. And most times when Debussy is dis-
cussed tile questions are badly exposed. The point, I think, is this:
most
musicologists have a curious way of looking on the story of music. They
think that music has a certain law-a law of tonality, of form and so
on--which was fixed in the time of the Classics, by Haydn, Beethoven,
Mozart and Bach. And then all who came after were no longer observ-
ing all the rules of that time, and so they called these musicians
revolu-
tionaries. For being new, you had to be a revolutionary. And being
revolutionary, you are new. But it is quite wrong. Because music is a
language, and this language is developed through the ages, exactly as
the English or the German or the French has developed through the
ages, and each new composer after the Classics has found a new form
of this language. It was not a revolution. It was creation, just
creation.
All the norm of form and scoring and instrumentation was acquired
by the end of the nineteenth century, and then it was finished. You
could not change. What you could do was only to employ this language
in a way which was personal to the composer. That is, to make a new
style in this language. That was the situation of Debussy. He was the
first composer entirely liberated from the influence of the time. But
before Debussy, even when the composers were making novelties, they
were writing in the style of their time. He was completely liberated of
that. He was not writing in the style of Saint-Saens or Cesar Franck.
That is why he is so free. He is the musician of freedom. Everything is
free with him. He has invented new harmonies, a new way of harmonic
development, and a new form of melody. He is freedom in person. But
then came this young generation of musicians who have, to my mind,
not understood Debussy, and believe they must be revolutionary again
and they must make something new. No. They must make new music!
That is different. .
You firs tformed your orchestra the Suisse Romande in I9I8 I believe.
Yes fifty years ago. We will have the fiftieth anniversary at the end
of November.
It was because in this Country we had at the end of the First World
War no major orchestra. There was only a small orchestra in the
Geneva Theatre but an orchestra for the commonplace French opera-
Massenet Charpentier and so on. Lausanne had no orchestra and so
I realized that we could have an orchestra only with the agreement of
the French-speaking Swiss that is what we call Suisse Romande. And
so we decided to form a special symphony orchestra only for concerts.
We were helped by Sponsors. Rich people would give their money.
In forming the orchestra I took the woodwind players principally
from France the brass players principally from Vienna the string
players from Belgium and Italy. We did not have sufficient Swiss
players at that time. But since then these foreign players have
developed
pupils who have replaced them in the orchestra and now we have
mostly Swiss players. Of course) the orchestra was not large about
fifty or sixty-odd players who we could engage only for six months. And
so my effort was to try: to obtain a longer period or to obtain work
during the summer and also to have more players. In 1930 with the
great crisis in America many of Our Sponsors could no longer give their
money and we tried to obtain more subscribers but paying a little less.
It was good until 1935. In that year the Swiss Radio decided to place
its orchestra in Lausanne not in Geneva. We had no more resources.
So the Societe de l'Orchestre de la Suisse Romande was dissolved
and as the players were there and would not go to Lausanne they
asked me to form a co-operative. We worked in a Co-operative with
very low salaries for three years. During this time I prepared a plan to
be submitted to the Swiss Radio for presenting the orchestra in Geneva.
I told the Swiss Radio 'You have now in Lausarine an orchestra of
forty-five players. If you accept my plan I will give you in Geneva an
orchestra of eighty-four players for the same price.' After three years
of
struggle my plan was adopted. It is called here 'The Plan Ansermet'.
The orchestra disappeared from Lausanne came to Geneva and I
formed the new orchestra of eighty-four players. Since then we have
struggled to obtain more subscriptions from the State or the city in
order to give longer contracts to the orchestra, to have more players.
We are now 120 and all are engaged for the year .
How many of those are Swiss now ?
I think three-quarters.
Do you think that the actual standard of orchestral playing today is
very much
higher than it was, say, in 1935 ?
Oh yes. The exigency of the public is much higher, and it is a
necessity. I t is now difficult to realize, because there is a lack of
string
players in the world. The young people have no more time or not
sufficient money to study the violin for seven years before getting a
living. And so it is difficult to find good violinists. But up till now
we
could realize that and I hope we will continue to find the necessary
players. It is faster to become a flute player than to become a
violinist.
You were speaking of public awareness. People demand virtuoso orchestras
more now than they did.
Yes, because the public is less musicien than it was. I made this
observation about thirty years ago. There were two kinds of country,
in my view: the country where the people are very musical-and in
this country you can play badly, but it is not disturbing because you
are so musical that you enjoy the music anyhow, I fit is badly played or
not; and the country which is not musical, like France, where you must
play perfectly if you want to catch the attention of the public. But
now,
everywhere, we ask for good playing.
You feel that the actual appreciation of music for music's sake is
lacking ?
Yes. And for performance. Exactly. I can tell you that I have con-
ducted orchestras in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in Germany, not in the
big cities but in smaller cities where there were very bad orchestras,
but the public was delighted because they heard music; they were not
looking for the performance. I have' often been in concerts in New
York where I observed that the hearers were very superficial. For
instance, once I heard Koussivitsky playin,g the Pathetique and it was
a very good performance and I was very moved. The last note was not
finished and people around me me said, 'Now, where are we going?'
They were already out of the' music! I think that somebody who really
appreciates the work needs to remain a little longer in the impressions
he has received.
I think that there is another side to this. John Culshaw in his book
called
Ring Resounding, based on his experiences recording the Ring cycle in
Vienna, was discussing this matter about young people and musical
appreciation.
He said that it was quite wrong to say that people did not have as much
musical
appreciation now as they did in earlier times, simply because the
gramophone had
made people far more musically aware. You are saying the contrary ?
No, I don't agree with you at all. Because, to my mind, for being a
musician you must practise the music. You must have played an
instrument or sing-even badly-but make music. It is in the making
of music that you develop in yourself the musical feeling. And if you
only hear the music by radio or by gramophone records, then you are
a spectator of music. You take the music from outside, at a distance,
and so you receive the effect, but not of the real musical feeling. That
is the point. I think the public today is a bad public, a public un-
educated; most of the hearers know the music only by hearing, not by
participating.
If they then know the music only by hearing ,you are saying that it is
something
that is superficial.
Well, it may be that there are some of these hearers who will make
the inner event of music. But not all. They can only remain as
spectators.
Therefore, one really comes to the recording industry as such. Are you
really
pleased with the developments that have taken place in the recording, in
the
purveying of music, or do you think that there are quite a few ills that
are
attendant upon developing a large recording market ?
No, I think it is very good, this recording. I was very much interested
in recording. But I must say that it is extremely difficult. Perhaps
other
conductors are more clever or happier than I am in recording, because
they remain cold and they can judge. I find it is always for me a terror
.
I know that what we are playing now is definitive. We remain on the
record, you see, and I am afraid not to be exact, sufficiently exact.
In the public performance, in the concert, it is not so. We are quite
free. What will happen will happen. We do our best, but we have no
preoccupation with the absolute exactitude of each point, which is the
case in recording. That is why I can say-and it is a confession-I am
not sure that my records give the right idea of what I am able to do
with some works. I am persuaded that I have given many performances
of works I have recorded which were better than my recording;
perhaps, in the recording, I was too absorbed by the sorrow of being
exact.
You used the word definitive. Do you ever regard any performance as
definitive ?
No, no! We try to make the performance as perfect as possible. But
after each occasion I think that next time it will be better !
I would like to ask you, Mr Ansermet, about some of the actual recording
processes in a studio. Are you a believer in doing a work as a complete
entity, or
do you agree to splicing in fragments and doing things in short takes ?
I must say, since we have the long-playing record we can make
longer fragments and it is much better. Of course, we don't succeed
always in making a full work, so we must make fragments. Or we can
make them whole and take again a part of it, a few tags. But I can tell
you, for instance, that our recording of L ' Apres-Midi d'un Faune was
made at once. I told my orchestra, you are ready now-we are going
till the end so that we have the unity.' We were sure of that unity.
But do you feel that in introducing these tags you destroy the unity ?
Oh no, because when I make the tags I make them exactly as
before but it is better performed.
In discussing this business of splicing we are talking about a
mechanical thing
that is imposed upon music and there is an increasing intrusion of the
mechanical
into our lives. Do you feel with the mechanical advances made in
recording that
they are all to the good ?
Not always. Because in the first years when we were making stereo
the microphones were placed before the orchestra and they took the
whole orchestra at once. Now they place several microphones in the
orchestra and that may alter the balance established by the conductor.
For instance, if I conduct I make the balance between my horns,
trombones, strings and woodwinds.
Now if they take it with a microphone placed in the brass, they will
give more value to the brass than I have given myself. That is a danger
.
I think in this progress, or so-called progress) of the technique is a
danger. I told our technician, 'You are trying now to make a photo-
graph of the orchestra, because you place your microphones every-
where. But no, you have not to take a photograph, you have to take a
reproduction of the sound I produce myself with the whole orchestra.'
Sometimes the orchestra has too much of a concrete presence, a sonor-
ous presence, than a musical presence.
At the beginning of our collaboration with Decca, our records had
very good success, and after two or three years I had the opportunity
of going to London to visit the Decca factory where the records are
made. One of the technicians in this factory asked me, 'Can you
explain to me why your records are so clean sounding ?' I told him
perhaps the reason: 'You have before you a nice lady. She is of very
good appearance-nice clothes, and so on-but you don't know if,
under the clothes, the underwears are clean. I can tell you my effort is
to make clean the underwears !'
Geneva, September I968
Geneva, September I968
Brian Stewart
ansermetniac wrote:
>
> From the Book-Conversations With Conductors
>
> in MS -Word Format
>
> http://members.aol.com/abbedd4/eainterview.doc
>
> _______________
> Ansermetniac disclaimer--I may have the Ansermetnia badly, but I did not
> type this interview into my computer. I photostated it and put it in my
> sheet fed scanner and used OCR software to create text. Type this in? I
> am not that Meshuga!!!!
Me: Very interesting interview.
Chesterman: Out of these various points you mention, would you say the
most difficult thing of all, perhaps, to convey properly to an orchestra
is that of rhythm?
Ansermet: Yes. The whole question is that the conductor must understand
that the musical time is not a metric time. That is contrary to what is
taught in many schools, because they see always the written beat; but
every beat is already a cadence. The beat is only marked by a crotchet
or a dotted crotchet. In the first case the crotchet is the value of two
quavers. In the second the dotted crotchet has the value of three
quavers, and so it is already a cadence. So the single beat of the
conductor indicates the cadence, and that is the first question. The
conductor doesn't beat the time, he beats the cadence. That is the
point.
Me: I don't understand what Ansermet is saying here, particulary his use
of the term 'cadence'. Can someone help me out?
Cheers!
Brian Stewart
kenneth kwan
born 1883 and died 1969. so the interview is a year before his death.
my impression is that most of this recordings, ravel, debussy,
stravinsky...dated from 1955 and after, like the beethoven in the
1960s. so he was over 70 ! when most of his recordings took place.
and his beethoven tempo is so swift, by his age !
questions : did he record a lot for decca before 1955 ? are the
major french/russian repertiore that are available now (and also the
big box set in the early 90s) some kind of stereo replacement for
early mono ?
Ansermetniac
before that. All ar on the LYS series of CDs. The French recordings were
almost all done twice. The La Mer 4 times, 1946,51,57,63. The original mono
Ravel recordings 1951-53 were released as a two disc CD in the Decca
historic series. The ones in the 12 cd box are stereo remakes. Ansermet
started stereo recordings in June 1954.
The Russian recordings were done once except the three Stravinsky ballets
and the Fairy's Kiss(Div twice 1951, 62 complete 63). It appears that he
started with the French repertoire and Stravinsky and then moved to the
Russian. After rerecording the French in stereo, he turned to the core
German repertoire Beethoven 1956-63. Haydn 62-66 and Brahms 1963. He also
did the Bach suites 1962 and some cantatas 1965-67
Strangely, he left the Sym Fantistique till 1967. His last recordings were
Bach Cantatas
Honegger Sym 3 & 4
Magnard Sym #3
Stravinsky Firebird Complete with the NPO with rehearsal disc.
He was the conductor who established Decca/London's reputation especially in
the U.S.A. I recommend John Culshaw's auto biography for a great history of
Decca . He perpetuates the myth that Ansermet had no aptitude in he core
German repertoire, but the history is very interesting. Including how Decca
did their original LP transfers of 78s without the aid of a tape machine.
Abbedd the ansermetniac
"kenneth kwan" <kennet...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b65558a4.03030...@posting.google.com...
ansermetniac
kennet...@excite.com says...
recordings