Just heard a fascinating interview with Bernard Haitink on BBC Radio 3. He talked about learning the Mahler symphonies to perform and record them. Then he said this:
"Don't talk about number eight, because I think number eight is a sort of monstrosity: an incredible pastiche of all sorts of things. I had to do it in my life three times, and if I never do it again.....I will not be sad. (Laughs)"
> Just heard a fascinating interview with Bernard Haitink on BBC Radio 3. > He talked about learning the Mahler symphonies to perform and record > them. Then he said this:
> "Don't talk about number eight, because I think number eight is a sort > of monstrosity: an incredible pastiche of all sorts of things. I had to > do it in my life three times, and if I never do it again.....I will not > be sad. (Laughs)"
> So now we know.
Actually, I remember to have read something similar a couple of years ago, but I cannot quote the source. A (hopefully) rare example of a great conductor unable to understand THE masterpiece written by a composer whom he is supposed to be a specialist (uhm... do I need a "of" in this relativve clause? Unsure.......)
>"Tony Duggan" <dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:ao8ubm$o0c$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... >> Just heard a fascinating interview with Bernard Haitink on BBC Radio 3. >> He talked about learning the Mahler symphonies to perform and record >> them. Then he said this:
>> "Don't talk about number eight, because I think number eight is a sort >> of monstrosity: an incredible pastiche of all sorts of things. I had to >> do it in my life three times, and if I never do it again.....I will not >> be sad. (Laughs)"
>> So now we know.
>Actually, I remember to have read something similar a couple of years ago, >but I cannot quote the source. A (hopefully) rare example of a great >conductor unable to understand THE masterpiece written by a composer whom he >is supposed to be a specialist (uhm... do I need a "of" in this relativve >clause? Unsure.......)
One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because he plays other works by the same composer. It was much better in the "old" days when people like Walter, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, etc. didn't perform and record the complete works of the entire standard repertoire and kept to the works they loved most.
I had the Haitink M8...detested it and gave it away. Now I know why.
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:15:27 +0200, "Massimo Nespolo" > <massimo.nesp...@NOSPAMwanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >"Tony Duggan" <dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:ao8ubm$o0c$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... > >> Just heard a fascinating interview with Bernard Haitink on BBC Radio 3. > >> He talked about learning the Mahler symphonies to perform and record > >> them. Then he said this:
> >> "Don't talk about number eight, because I think number eight is a sort > >> of monstrosity: an incredible pastiche of all sorts of things. I had to > >> do it in my life three times, and if I never do it again.....I will not > >> be sad. (Laughs)"
> >> So now we know.
> >Actually, I remember to have read something similar a couple of years ago, > >but I cannot quote the source. A (hopefully) rare example of a great > >conductor unable to understand THE masterpiece written by a composer whom he > >is supposed to be a specialist (uhm... do I need a "of" in this relativve > >clause? Unsure.......)
> One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a > conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece > of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because > he plays other works by the same composer.
Hear hear, say I.
> I had the Haitink M8...detested it and gave it away. Now I know why.
The impression he gave in the interview was that he only recorded it because he had to to make up the cycle.
>"Tony Duggan" <dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:ao8ubm$o0c$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk... >> Just heard a fascinating interview with Bernard Haitink on BBC Radio 3. >> He talked about learning the Mahler symphonies to perform and record >> them. Then he said this:
>> "Don't talk about number eight, because I think number eight is a sort >> of monstrosity: an incredible pastiche of all sorts of things. I had to >> do it in my life three times, and if I never do it again.....I will not >> be sad. (Laughs)"
>> So now we know.
I guess this explains why he hasn't recorded it with the BPO on Phillips as part of his complete cycle, which from the sound of this is not going to be complete after all.
I do have his ACO performance from 1971 and I am fond of it, although it is not one of my favorites. There are some wonderful playing from the orchestra, especially at the coda of the first movement.
"Patrick McGuire" <Pmcguir...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3da83dec.209302738@netnews.attbi.com... | | I guess this explains why he hasn't recorded it with the BPO on | Phillips as part of his complete cycle, which from the sound of this | is not going to be complete after all.
Wasn't it Philips (or Universal or whatever) that has stopped that "cycle"?
-- Jan Depondt ____________________________ mail: jdptATwanadoo.nl
"Tony Duggan" <dug...@scribble.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ao9ab7$ek1$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... | | | The impression he gave in the interview was that he only recorded it because | he had to to make up the cycle. |
Couldn't that be something he had to do because of a contract?
-- Jan Depondt ____________________________ mail: jdptATwanadoo.nl
I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.)
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 13:15:27 +0200, "Massimo Nespolo" > <massimo.nesp...@NOSPAMwanadoo.fr> wrote:
> One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a > conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece > of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because > he plays other works by the same composer. It was much better in the > "old" days when people like Walter, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, > etc. didn't perform and record the complete works of the entire > standard repertoire and kept to the works they loved most.
> I had the Haitink M8...detested it and gave it away. Now I know why.
>>Actually, I remember to have read something similar a couple of years ago, >>but I cannot quote the source. A (hopefully) rare example of a great >>conductor unable to understand THE masterpiece written by a composer whom he >>is supposed to be a specialist (uhm... do I need a "of" in this relativve >>clause? Unsure.......)
>One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a >conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece >of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because >he plays other works by the same composer. It was much better in the >"old" days when people like Walter, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, >etc. didn't perform and record the complete works of the entire >standard repertoire and kept to the works they loved most.
>I had the Haitink M8...detested it and gave it away. Now I know why.
>John
Not all conductors feel that way - there are conductors who simply will not do works that they don't respond to -- in some cases it is works within the canon of a composer whose other works they conduct, in other cases it is entire composers' outputs that they don't respond to. And there are conductors who constantly re-examine this too. Barenboim, with whom I work, is a good example - he does some Mahler symphonies but not others, because he just doesn't feel he fully comprehends them. He is about to do his first Sibelius Symphony this year (No. 5), have studied it and finding that he liked it far more than he had in the past.
Bernstein was another one who stayed away from works he didn't like; He did Bruckner 9 a few times, because he responded to it; No. 6 once, I think - but didn't do the other Bruckner symphonies because he didn't care for them. He also did some of the Shostakovich symphonies thrillingly, but others he wouldn't touch.
I agree that conductors should lead music in which they believe, passionately. That is the only way they'll "sell" the music.
> I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though > he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the > other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective > package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to > listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into > the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.)
If you've only heard the first 30 seconds from one performance, how can you be so sure that that it's the music, and not that performance, that you dislike? If you've heard other, non-cyclic performances, what were they?
> I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though > he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the > other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective > package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to > listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into > the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.)
This is something I really cannot understand.... I can accept people who do not like Mahler - after all I do not like some composers who are instead in the heart of others (Mozart, Sibelius, Scribain, Schumann...). But when even "Mahlerites of proved faith" state their love for "everything Mahler wrote but the 8th" I am just puzzled. Mahler himself defined his eight "the greatest thing I have ever written" (quotation from memory, excat words may differ a bit..) The 8th represents, IMVHO, the apex and the apotheosis of all the spritirual-symphonic journey he did from the very beginning of his composing, and the "conditio sine qua non" for the start of the next, imore intmistic period (dLvdE, 9th and 10th). It contains everything: from the glory of the "paradise" in the "Veni Creator Spiritus" to the mystical meditation in the orchestral interlude, from the deeply moving prayer of Doctor Marianus (whether what's sung is a prayer or not doesn't matteir, it much sounds like that) to the sweet invocation to "God" by the off-stage soprano, from the melancolic melodhy of the harmonium to the glorious finale introduced by choir in crescendo... A masterpiece, perhaps "the" masterpiece. In almost all the other symponies by Mahler you can perhaps find some imperfect parts, but the eight is simply perfect, a dialogue with "God", the arrival point of a long journey. How can a Mahlerite not love the 8th remains a mystery, to me....
> > >conductor unable to understand THE masterpiece written by a composer whom > he > > >is supposed to be a specialist (uhm... do I need a "of" in this relativve > > >clause? Unsure.......)
> > One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a > > conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece > > of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because > > he plays other works by the same composer.
Haitink is not unique in this. I'd venture to guess that ALL musicians play and sometimes record music for which they feel absolutely no sympathy or connection. Early in one's career, one is forced to perform many works that fall into this category. The need for money is a real motivator!
I see nothing wrong with Haitink recording the Mahler 8 to complete the cycle he did for Philips. It certainly makes commerical sense. Plenty of conductors are forced to make trade-offs in their recording careers. Quite possibly, Haitink would have preferred not recording more than 3 to 5 of the Mahelr symphonies but was told by Philips that it was all or nothing. With the Concertgebouw at his disposal, he may have figured "what the hell, they'll play it fine, and I'll escape the bullet. "
And who knows, maybe he felt he'd "grow into" the piece over time but didn't. Most of us spend plenty of time in this NG bashing certain conductors who we aver have "no sympathy" for a particular piece. At least Haitink has seen clear to fess up about the Mahler 8.
Personally, I sort of agree with his assessment. I wouldn't consider the 8th Mahler's masterpiece. I'd give that laurel to the 9th. The 8th happens to be my least favorite Mahler Symphony. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as does Haitink, but it is his most over-the-top work. That's why it works so well in Lenny's hands.
I think that, in the final analysis, it comes down to the money and having a recording contract. Robert Shaw once told me that he had to do a lot of "commercially viable" discs for RCA as trade-offs for getting to record the Mass in b Minor or the Messiah. At least in Haitink's case, HIS trade-off was recording the 8th, rather than a bon bon disc of Shania Twain covers.
> I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though > he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the > other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective > package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to > listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into > the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.)
To each his own, I guess. I love Mahler 8 and I suspect that I always will. I don't pretend that it's "great" music, but it's music that I always find inspiring, and hence a great listen. And the literary conception behind the piece even speaks to me (of course, I used to spend lots of time in bookstores looking for neat modern English translations of Faust, Part II). But I think this brings up a key element for me in conducting Mahler. The conductors I have the greatest problem with in Mahler are ones who run away from the man behind the music, who seem embrassed by his emotionality or metaphysical concerns. And the conductors I love are those who take Mahler the man at his word, or like Lenny (to borrow a phrase from Emeril Lagasse), "kick it up a notch."
> One thing about today's conductors I just don't understand...If a > conductor does not feel he "understands" or has sympathy with a piece > of music why does he feel he must perform and record it just because > he plays other works by the same composer. It was much better in the > "old" days when people like Walter, Klemperer, Furtwangler, Toscanini, > etc. didn't perform and record the complete works of the entire > standard repertoire and kept to the works they loved most.
> I had the Haitink M8...detested it and gave it away. Now I know why.
Maybe - but does Haitink feel the same way about no 2? His recording of that is just as bad. A performer's caring for a piece music is no guarantee that it will be a good performance....
>Maybe - but does Haitink feel the same way about no 2? His recording of >that is just as bad. A performer's caring for a piece music is no >guarantee that it will be a good performance....
>Simon
Exactly. I love Mahler's 2nd symphony, but I doubt anyone would want to hear me conduct it. ;-)
In article <20021012135821.22193.00000...@mb-co.aol.com>,
henryfo...@aol.com (HenryFogel) wrote: > I agree that conductors should lead music in which they believe, > passionately. > That is the only way they'll "sell" the music.
Do you suppose that relatively compact (in a manner of speaking, in this case!) groupings like the Mahler symphonies encourage "complete" sets because it's more feasible to do a cycle of 9 symphonies than one of 41 or 104?
"horizon" <mcarnice...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:y31q9.4144$Up6.1371140@twister.nyc.rr.com... | | "Arthur La Porta" <a...@cornell.edu> wrote in message | news:3DA8625D.11D35A34@cornell.edu... | > | > I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though | > he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the | > other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective | > package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to | > listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into | > the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.) | | To each his own, I guess. I love Mahler 8 and I suspect that I always will. | I don't pretend that it's "great" music, but it's music that I always find | inspiring, and hence a great listen. And the literary conception behind the | piece even speaks to me (of course, I used to spend lots of time in | bookstores looking for neat modern English translations of Faust, Part II). | But I think this brings up a key element for me in conducting Mahler. The | conductors I have the greatest problem with in Mahler are ones who run away | from the man behind the music, who seem embrassed by his emotionality or | metaphysical concerns. And the conductors I love are those who take Mahler | the man at his word, or like Lenny (to borrow a phrase from Emeril Lagasse), | "kick it up a notch."
Don't you mean "kitsch it up a notch", with all due respect to Lenny whom I admire greatly. <g>
As for the 8th, on a personal note, I have never ever really got into the work. I've struggled through it a few times, but maybe I should read more about the sources Mahler used for his inspiration, and give it another go. I did find one hushed passage on the strings quite stunningly beautiful (by Kubelik), but where in the work I couldn't say right now.
I'm in agreement with Ray's comments re Mahler's Eighth. Who knows, maybe someday I'll love it, but not now. There's some interesting stuff in it, and it's worth an occasional listen, but for me, Mahler's greatest work is the Ninth. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California 33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
"Bill Pittman" <williep...@global2000.net> wrote in message
news:williepitt-7A6B8A.20043212102002@news.mybizz.net... | In article <20021012135821.22193.00000...@mb-co.aol.com>, | henryfo...@aol.com (HenryFogel) wrote: | | > I agree that conductors should lead music in which they believe, | > passionately. | > That is the only way they'll "sell" the music. | | Do you suppose that relatively compact (in a manner of speaking, in this | case!) groupings like the Mahler symphonies encourage "complete" sets | because it's more feasible to do a cycle of 9 symphonies than one of 41 | or 104?
Give credit to Karajan, for admitting he didn't comprehend, and neither did Ormandy, the Sibelius 3rd. Beecham disliked some of the LvB symphonies, and as far as Haitink is concerned, he once said, and to quote him from memory, that he would allow himself only one half of the year for Mahler. He found the music too stressful and too depressing to become totally immersed in it. He found it necessary, psychologically, to separate himself from Mahler for a while.
As for recording the 8th, then he was probably contracted to do it, and makes sense from the marketability point of view of a complete Haitink cycle being available. I bet a pound to a penny, that some conductors loathe the LvB 9th, but they end up recording it nonetheless, in order to complete a cycle. It could, of course, be any one or more of the others, before I get jumped on.
> > I am glad that Haitink recorded that grotesque monstrosity even though > > he hated it. Without the complete cycle we would not have all of the > > other Haitink/RCO recordings in a convenient and cost-effective > > package. I have several Mahler cycles, and I have never been tempted to > > listen to the "8" from any of them. (I made it about 30 seconds into > > the Solti/CSO, but that was the best I could do.)
> This is something I really cannot understand.... > I can accept people who do not like Mahler - after all I do not like some > composers who are instead in the heart of others (Mozart, Sibelius, > Scribain, Schumann...). > But when even "Mahlerites of proved faith" state their love for "everything > Mahler wrote but the 8th" I am just puzzled. Mahler himself defined his > eight "the greatest thing I have ever written" (quotation from memory, excat > words may differ a bit..) The 8th represents, IMVHO, the apex and the > apotheosis of all the spritirual-symphonic journey he did from the very > beginning of his composing, and the "conditio sine qua non" for the start of > the next, imore intmistic period (dLvdE, 9th and 10th). It contains > everything: from the glory of the "paradise" in the "Veni Creator Spiritus" > to the mystical meditation in the orchestral interlude, from the deeply > moving prayer of Doctor Marianus (whether what's sung is a prayer or not > doesn't matteir, it much sounds like that) to the sweet invocation to "God" > by the off-stage soprano, from the melancolic melodhy of the harmonium to > the glorious finale introduced by choir in crescendo... A masterpiece, > perhaps "the" masterpiece. In almost all the other symponies by Mahler you > can perhaps find some imperfect parts, but the eight is simply perfect, a > dialogue with "God", the arrival point of a long journey. How can a > Mahlerite not love the 8th remains a mystery, to me....
No great mystery involved. I simply can't bear Mahler's music for chorus and orchestra. I love all of his music for orchestra, and with help of my remote can enjoy those symphonies which have choral horrors but redeming movements for orchestra (2, 3) but the 8th, only the eject button suffices!
I heard a story that Bernstein was telling somebody that he didn't like Bruckner's Eighth, and to explain what he didn't like about it, he played the entire symphony from memory on the piano. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California 33° 27' 59"N, 117° 05' 53"W
>Subject: Re: Haitink on Mahler 8 - Now we know ! >From: "Curtis Croulet" curti...@pe.net >Date: 10/12/2002 10:18 PM Central Daylight Time >Message-id: <_B5q9.505$BiL3.6553...@news2.randori.com>
>I heard a story that Bernstein was telling somebody that he >didn't like Bruckner's Eighth, and to explain what he didn't >like about it, he played the entire symphony from memory on >the piano. >-- >Curtis Croulet >Temecula, California
True story - I believe I'm the one who told it; it happened in Japan in 1979, on a tour with the NYPhil, after a concert and after he had signed autographs backstage - I ventured to suggest to him that he would perform the Bruckner 8th wonderfully. He told me what an awful piece it was (he used more colorful language), and when I protested, he sat down and played through it (omitting the repeat of the scherzo), pointing out what he saw as its flaws. I was stunned that he would know so thoroughly a piece he didn't even like! Henry Fogel
On 10/12/02 11:18 PM, "Curtis Croulet" <curti...@pe.net> wrote:
> I heard a story that Bernstein was telling somebody that he > didn't like Bruckner's Eighth, and to explain what he didn't > like about it, he played the entire symphony from memory on > the piano.
That's very impressive. I'd like to know what some of his explanations were. The Bruckner 8 is my favorite work of his and, I believe, his masterpiece.
> I'm in agreement with Ray's comments re Mahler's Eighth. > Who knows, maybe someday I'll love it, but not now. There's > some interesting stuff in it, and it's worth an occasional > listen, but for me, Mahler's greatest work is the Ninth. > --
Maybe you simply like to attend a live performance. If well played, that's a life-chaging experience.
|
