Horenstein.... (& Hurwitz)
Eomike52
tempting to say "but David, he always said such nice things about you..."
Recognizing that composition, performance decisions, and reviews are highly
subjective by nature I will 'fess up right away that I am a Horenstein admirer.
While not wanting to over-analyze Hurwitz's review, in using such terms as
"vile," "heedless rigidity," and "artistic butchery" among others it appears as
though he comes to this with a pre-conceived intention to knock down someone
for the knocking-down's sake alone.
David Gable suggests that those responding here address the specific points
Hurwitz raises. I'll attempt one or two.
Hurwitz writes that Horenstein begins the symphony too quickly,
accelerating to the allegro where "Mahler only suggests 'don't drag'". He does
not mention an instruction Mahler gives 8 bars before that- translated (in the
Dover edition) as: "Somewhat less slow, but still very moderately." What does
that mean? It is up to the conductor to decide. Either beforehand or at that
moment and sure, not everyone will agree with that decision. Even the conductor
upon looking back may do it differently another time- a recording luxury that
Horenstein had only in a few circumstances.
In the 4th movement, Hurwitz writes that Horenstein "witlessly destroys the
movement's single climax by ignoring the accelerando that begins around figure
214...". Mahler's instructions in that section contain phrases such as
"somewhat stringendo (urgent)," "stirred up," and "very flowing." Which
Horenstein does follow.
Enough nit-picking here. I do not count myself as a Mahler fanatic to the
point where I listen with score in hand, waiting to pounce on any conductor who
deviates from instructions in the slightest. In fact, I came to appreciate
Mahler somewhat later in my life as a professional musician. And although I'm
certainly now familiar with Bernstein, Haitink, Karajan, Walter and Klemperer
to name some, Horenstein's Mahler readings have only deepened that
appreciation.
Horenstein himself during two interviews in 1969 protested others'
depictions of him as "the leading exponent of Mahler and Bruckner." "I conduct
all good music. From the 16th to the 21st (!) centuries..." A glance through
Deryk Barker's discography reveals an awful lot of varied material that
supports that contention. Perhaps a revived interest in his work will prompt
the French Radio and other Archives to consider releasing some of it. At least
Vox is starting to re-issue a good amount of his early recordings.
The only area of agreement I have with Hurwitz is over the recording quality
of the BBC release. If you can find the older Descant or M&A recordings, go
with those. (Although former JH assistant Joel Lazar's liner notes are worth
it...).
Hurwitz writes that "Horenstein of course has his admirers..." Who are some
of them? In researching for an article published in the December 1999 edition
of the NYC Musicians' Local 802 paper "Allegro," I talked to several musicians
who played for him. "A complex character, he was interesting because he was
different," said the American SO's principal cellist who also played under him
previously when he guested the Suisse-Romande. "He was always concerned about
balance and avoiding routine." "He was terrific," said the principal trumpeter,
"he was very clear, the pacing was very good, and the emotional levels (of the
Mahler 9th) were carefully worked out." And the one-time principal cellist of
the Berlin and Israel Philharmonics (and fellow emigre from the Nazis) told a
friend of mine shortly before his passing that Horenstein's performances were
"always fresh and 'of the moment.'"
A "perfect conductor?" No. Who is, for that matter? One who deserves much
wider recognition for his work and whose work is valuable for musicians to
study? Definitely. Jascha Horenstein's growing legacy of contribution to music
will only grow in stature.
The question for Hurwitz to maybe ponder is how will his stature in
reviewing music grow if he has become one who has started "believing his own
press..."
Michael Spengler
MTaboada
understanding of modern music can check out the three Panufnik pieces
(Automn Music, Tragic Overture, and Nocture) on Unicorn-Khanchana. Few
composers followed a more strict compositional method than Panufnik;
these three pieces are totally different, but Horenstein makes them all
sound infinitely human, perfect in fact, without sacrificing the
structures so carefully built by Andrzej Panufnik.
It's also worth pointing out that there is no Horenstein cult; in fact,
most music fans don't know about him. He's more of a forgotten figure
than an idol, as is Furtwaengler. We move in narrow, specialized
circles, but to the world out there, these guys are dead guys. In this
context (assuming that he is aware of it), Hurwitz wants to add a nail
to the coffin. Pathetic.
Regards,
MrT
Simon Roberts
: Well said, Michael.
Indeed.
[snip]
: It's also worth pointing out that there is no Horenstein cult; in fact,
: most music fans don't know about him.
But that's almost a necessary condition for the existence of the sort of
cult pertinent here, isn't it?
Simon
Frank Berger
MTaboada wrote:
To those who believe in the cult, you and the rest of your narrow circle
ARE the cult.
Ehrlich606
I think Hurwitz like a lot of critics wants to be good at what he does. The
problem is that to be a good critic you have to be a good teacher:
entertaining, and instructive.
The great critics that I have read -- Schumann, Hanslick, Tovey, Newman,
Thomson -- were not above vituperation. But they knew how to keep it _light_
and not personal. Too many aspiring critics, trying to get an audience,
confuse hard language or even bad language with "good" criticism.
I have read a lot of Hurwitz. He's not so bad. At his best, he is helpful and
informative. At his worst he sounds like someone seeking to be funny by being
insulting -- either to composers, conductors, or their fans. He should go back
and read the great critics: Hanslick, for example, could be uproariously funny,
even though I disagree with most of what he wrote, but he knew how to keep his
sense of humor.
Frank Berger
Ehrlich606 wrote:
I doubt Mr. Hurwitz can acquire a sense of humour by reading other critics (or any
other means).
samir golescu
How many of you have heard Horenstein's two versions of Mahler Ninth (a
symphony I am more familiar with than with the Seventh, having heard many
performances of it)? While the early effort is very good, the later live
recording is unique -- it finds colors I didn't hear in other versions. So
intense...
regards,
SG
____________
<<But most by numbers judge a poet's song;
And smooth or rough, with them is right or wrong:
In the bright Muse though thousand charms conspire,
Her voice is all these tuneful fools admire,
Who haunt Parnassus but to please their ear,
Not mend their minds; as some to church repair,
Not for the doctrine, but the music there.>>
Alexander Pope
Simon Roberts
: How many of you have heard Horenstein's two versions of Mahler Ninth (a
: symphony I am more familiar with than with the Seventh, having heard many
: performances of it)? While the early effort is very good, the later live
: recording is unique -- it finds colors I didn't hear in other versions. So
: intense...
Agree re both; I'm not generally an admirer of this conductor, but the
live 9th is one of the best I know.
Simon
Matthew Silverstein
> I have read a lot of Hurwitz. He's not so bad. At his best, he is helpful
and
> informative. At his worst he sounds like someone seeking to be funny by
being
> insulting -- either to composers, conductors, or their fans. He should go
back
> and read the great critics: Hanslick, for example, could be uproariously
funny,
> even though I disagree with most of what he wrote, but he knew how to keep
his
> sense of humor.
I quite agree.
Matty
Matthew Silverstein
But how could you not be an admirer of Horenstein and still object to
Hurwitz's review? I don't understand . . .
Matty
Tony Movshon
There are three live Horenstein 9ths: American SO, London SO, and
ONF. All from the 60s. Each has its admirers; most Horensteinians
prefer the LSO, but I retain a perverse preference for the ONF (on
Disques Montaigne); the French players seem to have more intensity,
and the sound is a bit better (or a bit less bad).
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
Simon Roberts
: There are three live Horenstein 9ths: American SO, London SO, and
: ONF. All from the 60s. Each has its admirers; most Horensteinians
: prefer the LSO, but I retain a perverse preference for the ONF (on
: Disques Montaigne); the French players seem to have more intensity,
: and the sound is a bit better (or a bit less bad).
I forgot that one; I was referring to the LSO, which I prefer - haven't
kept the French one (which may in part be why I forgot it).
Simon
Frank Berger
Matthew Silverstein wrote:
You have to lie about not being a cultist.
samir golescu
You see? That's why I am *not* an authority in Horenstein. (-:
I knew only *one* of the three Horensteins, on M&A.
regards,
SG
samir golescu
... and the studio one, from 1953, if memory serves. So there are *four*
Horenstein Mahler Ninths, in all?
Tony Movshon
> ... and the studio one, from 1953, if memory serves. So there are *four*
> Horenstein Mahler Ninths, in all?
As far as I know, yes.
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu
K. Howson-Jan
> I knew only *one* of the three Horensteins, on M&A.
So the smart-alecks will ask you "Which one?" The French and the LSO
both circulated on different M&A release.
Kang
JRsnfld
Ever since reading DH's review of Horenstein's Mahler 7, I've been listening to
the piece obsessively, with score in hand. Michael, your response is eloquent
and fair, but what do you think of the above statement? I'd say it's the first
of many subjective judgments in this review. I don't feel Horenstein misjudges
"Langsam" here. In any case, the performance is not nearly as blind to the
score as Hurwitz would have us believe.
It is true, however, as Hurwitz points out, that Horenstein forgoes many of the
tempo changes Mahler asks for. At least, he underplays the tempo contrasts
frequently. He doesn't miss as many as Hurwitz would have you believe, but some
of them are indeed important. Or at least other conductors have gotten used to
achieving these contrasts (not necessarily understanding Mahler's effect in the
process).
What I think is most interesting is that Horenstein still gets the flow of the
piece right. Hurwitz makes a big deal out of the necessary structural
components of the 2nd movement, but it's subjective to say that Horenstein
doesn't convey the structure, even though it *is* true that the performance is
less faithful to tempo changes here than many others.
Instead, Horenstein manages to bring out the contrasts I think Mahler is
looking for *without* using tempo fluctuation for this purpose. In fact, I
think the piece sounds more exciting, more probing, and more cohesive than
many, while maintaining the tricky, practically unresolvable contrasts in
material. Perhaps Horenstein's steadier hand gives the music a more relentless
feel that Mahler thought possible. I don't know; I do know that few finales
make more sense to me than Horenstein's. Hurwitz's claim that it is boring is
not just subjective--it's errant.
Somehow, Horenstein understands Mahler quite deeply and conveys that
understanding without following the score precisely. The question I want to
answer, through my listening to this and other versions, is: What is it that
Horenstein does *right* that Hurwitz so badly misjudges and that allows the
conductor to get away with a fair (but not disturbing) amount of textual
infidelity--and allows the orchestra to get away with erratic playing, only to
rouse a justly deserved outburst of applause at the end?
Long ago I was convinced of the emotional impact of this recording. Now that
I've had a chance to review it with score in hand, I would argue that
Horenstein is not necessarily an exemplary Mahler conductor here, though not
aggregiously wayward, either. More interestingly, he's very persuasive.
--Jeff
Simon Roberts
: It is true, however, as Hurwitz points out, that Horenstein forgoes many of the
: tempo changes Mahler asks for. At least, he underplays the tempo contrasts
: frequently.
[snip]
Perhaps I shouldn't admit this but I've never looked at the score of this
piece, so I don't know what you're referring to. But there's a big
difference between "foregoes many of the tempo changes Mahler asks for"
and "underplays the tempo contrasts frequently." If he does the latter
rather than the former, isn't it the case that Hurwitz's complaints aren't
as score driven as some would have us believe? Or does are these
contrasts quantified in the score (e.g. "double/half the previous tempo"
or precisely given via metronome markings)?
Simon
samir golescu
Yes.
JRsnfld
piece,<
I never really bothered to check the score until recently--which is pretty
embarrassing when you consider how long I've been fascinated with it.
When you do look at the score it is interesting to see how often Mahler gives
tempo indications. He actively seeks flexibility from the conductor. Some
shifts are sudden; some are not. They tend to underline contrasting material:
march rhythms versus dance rhythms, etc. People like Oscar Fried or Mengelberg
would have made this flexibility sound natural because they made such
fluctuations in most music by choice, even if the score wouldn't allow it.
Bernstein certainly was game for this aspect of Mahler's scores. Even the much
maligned Solti is alot more gung ho about these markings than you might think
(he adds his own fluctuations--racing ahead too fast and then reining in his
eagerness in some of the allegros of 7--the effect is thrilling because the
orchestra is right with him).
<There's a big difference between "foregoes many of the tempo changes Mahler
asks for"
and "underplays the tempo contrasts frequently."<
True, and I'm not finished thinking about this. Horenstein does both (but he
also follows plenty of markings too.) A few of the missing tempo changes are
very specific. Some openly refer to previous tempi (which are easy to lose
track of if you don't know the piece well). Most are not quantified or
objective, but are relative. To get them right, there should be a clear
hierarchy of tempi. There are times when Horenstein simply doesn't make enough
of a change, or makes no change, where he "should" to maintain the hierarchy.
In these moments Hurwitz is dead on, and his review is valuable for that.
But it's not an open and shut case that the work's structure is thereby
endangered. There are times where I don't care that Horenstein makes no tempo
change: the character of the material, and the cohesiveness of the movement,
are both maintained. I would argue that, therefore, the structure too is
probably not compromised (though it would take someone alot smarter than I to
figure out how).
>Isn't it the case that Hurwitz's complaints aren't
as score driven as some would have us believe?<
Many of his complaints are objective and some are not. What is critical to me
is that the performance has incredible variety of character, an incredible
sense of the Mahler idiom. Horenstein achieves this--he differentiates dances
from marches from lyricism, boisterousness from gloom, night from day (that's
the most critical one)--without all the tempo jockeying that Mahler asks for.
This success suggests to me that the score is "realized" even if it is not
faithfully reproduced. Hurwitz is right about most of his points, but I think
he has missed the big picture.
Perhaps what is most remarkable about Horenstein's performance is that he makes
"errors" that would be deadly in the hands of other conductors. Listen to
Abbado's 7, for instance, and you see the score reproduced faithfully. The
orchestra plays strongly and it plays beautifully. It's a great performance
with detachment--love the detachment or hate the performance. The worldly
character is gone in many key moments, because tempo changes by themselves
don't highlight the contrasts Mahler is after. If Abbado had not made the tempo
changes, the performance would be disastrous. But Horenstein gets the contrasts
even while he (sometimes) misses the tempo changes.
I can't fully explain how he does it. In the meantime, the lack of tempo
changes in key moments actually makes the performance a more cohesive listening
experience. Other details do the same. The trumpets are too loud at one point,
Hurwitz says. He's right. But the same music they're introducting too blatantly
later turns out to be uniquely haunting in Horenstein's interpretation, because
he asks the entire orchestra to phrase this material in a distinctive way--the
effect is riveting and, ironically, lends cohesiveness to the final minutes of
the movement. The fabric and character of the music is strengthened by
Horenstein's interventions. He and the orchestra turn vice into virtue, maybe
simply by intuition, maybe by careful preparation.
Perhaps Horenstein achieves more cohesion than Mahler himself wanted and/or
thought possible. The piece is sprawling because Mahler fits so many genres and
moods into each movement and into a surprisingly broad concept of "symphony".
The rationality behind the structure is obscure to the naive listener (and
certainly for me), much more than in any other Mahler symphony, I'd say.
Horenstein's approach is not the only successful one. Unlike Horenstein, who
embraces the material but doesn't overplay its heterogeneity, Bernstein (DG)
revels in the jarring juxtaposition of material. I think he gets us closer to
the piece on this level, the level of intuitive enjoyment regardless of the
effect it makes. He milks the moment and keeps us interested. Bernstein may get
us closer to the shock (and pleasure) early audiences may have had at this
strange symphony. But Horenstein may get us closer to a different level of
Mahler's genius.
--Jeff
Andrys Basten
JRsnfld <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Perhaps I shouldn't admit this but I've never looked at the score of this
>piece,<
>
>I never really bothered to check the score until recently--which is pretty
>embarrassing when you consider how long I've been fascinated with it.
>
>When you do look at the score it is interesting to see how often Mahler gives
>tempo indications. He actively seeks flexibility from the conductor. Some
>shifts are sudden; some are not. They tend to underline contrasting material:
Jeff,
Just wanted to thank you for an excellent report...
- A
--
Andrys Basten
http://andrys.com/books.html - Searches for Sheet Music-CDs-Videos
http://andrys.com/coupons.html - Current coupons, sales
http://andrys.com/ven-amer.html - Classical-Music Vendor-Pricing FAQs
http://andrys.com/freddyk.html - Freddy Kempf on CD
http://andrys.com/argerich.html - Available Argerich recordings
sbring
You've really made me curious. I'll order this record today.
Sven
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Simon Roberts
Michael Weston
: You've really made me curious. I'll order this record today.
: Sven
Berkshire still has the superior sounding Descant for $11.99.
sbring
but I've found the M&A, and that's also supposed to be better that BBC,
isn't it?
Tony Movshon
> rush...@interaccess.com wrote:
> > sbring (sven....@svekom.se) wrote:
> > : You've really made me curious. I'll order this record today.
> > : Sven
> >
> > Berkshire still has the superior sounding Descant for $11.99.
> >
> Since I live in Sweden, Berkshire's shipping charges are prohibitive,
> but I've found the M&A, and that's also supposed to be better that BBC,
> isn't it?
The M&A and the Descant are very similar, and either is much
better than the BBC. The Intaglio is supposed to be a direct
copy of the Descant, and is presumably also acceptable.
Tony Movshon
mov...@nyu.edu