Jens Laurson: Interview with Ivan Fischer
Premise Checker
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2006/10/interview-with-ivan-fischer.html
6.10.18
[with comments, his review of the recording of the Mahler 6th, and
more comments.]
[Hardly anything said about the fabulous Boulez recording! Is this one
even close?]
Contributed by Jens F. Laurson
Ivan Fischer A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to interview
Ivan Fischer, the new principal guest conductor of the NSO for WGMS
and their internet radio station VivaLaVoce.com. The occasion
coincided with the release of his new Mahler recording - the Second
("Resurrection") Symphony for Channel Classics.
Ivan Fischer is an ardent fan of Mahler ("one of the greatest
Geniuses of music history - on the same level as Bach or
Beethoven") and the founder of the Hungarian Mahler Society. I
suggest that to firmly establish Mahler on the musical menu in
Budapest might have been more difficult than in, say, Germany or
the United States - but apparently I am wrong. Not the audience
which loves Mahler, Fischer says, had to be convinced, but the
musicians. After a superb recording of the Sixth Symphony (which I
reviewed in November and will feature prominently on my upcoming
Mahler overview), his second Mahler recording raises the prospect
of a Mahler cycle with the Budapest Festival Orchestra - but Mr.
Fischer immediately waves off. Not a fan of complete cycles, he'd
rather only conduct those works that he has a truly deep connection
with and leave the others to other conductors. He admits straight
awaythat there are already so many full cycles that there is no
point in just doing another one. The symphony of Mahler's that he
is less fond of than the others is - not surprising for a
`Mahlerian' - the pompous glory-feast (my words, not his) that is
the Eight Symphony. This very complicated, complex, monumental work
(his words, not mine) is "not his cup of tea".
Getting excited talking about Mahler, he reveals that far beyond
just sharing the Austro-Hungarian cultural background, his
connections to Mahler are deeper, still. His and Mahler's family
started as Jewish shopkeepers in the Tartar Mountains and went on
to transfer their spiritual drive from religion to music. Fischer
sees a nearly-religious devotion to music still very much present
in his part of the world... and speaking of quasi-religious musical
devotion, the conversation is back to Mahler and the curious
phenomenon that Mahler either inspires the fiercest of fervor and
zeal (my own Mahler CD collection - well over 100 in number - could
well exemplify the obsession) in the listener or does not move him
or her at all. A "paradox" to Fischer, he attributes this to the
modernity of Mahler's music... a modernity he does not hear in the
harmonic language of Mahler but his `collage approach' to
composing; the juxtaposition and combination of very disparate
elements: folk music, military and marching band noise, nature's
sounds, etc. As such he sees Mahler much more in the light of those
composers that came after him than he sees similarities with
Bruckner, for example.
Other Reviews:
Tim Page, Fischer and Co. Provide A First-Rate Account of Mahler's
2nd (Washington Post, October 8)
While the programs for this season's concerts of Ivan Fischer are
already set (all-Mendelssohn on February 8, 9, 10, a Children's
Concert on February 11th and Brahms' Second Symphony in his first
appearance as PGC on November 30th - surrounded with smaller works
by Sibelius, Kodaly, Henderson, Richard Strauss, and Dvorák) - but
Mahler in one of the future seasons is not only a possibility but
would be a "wonderful thing to do". Mahler fans in the area would
surely be as delighted as Fischer purports to be about the idea.
His opening concert, meanwhile, opens with a tribute to the NSO and
Maestro Slatkin in the form of the new American work, Robert
Henderson's "Einstein's Violin".
Fischer responds candidly to the suggestion that there is - the
neo-romantic return of composing notwithstanding - still an air of
suspicion among concertgoers to everything that sounds `too
beautiful' at first hearing. He sees this as the separation of two
different appeals: one to shallow- and one to `deep' listening.
Great music, he argues, is the one that combines the two. Even more
intriguing his candor when asked whether conductors, to be great,
need to be particularly aware of their weaknesses or think of
themselves as not having any. It was a question that Marin Alsop
navigated with all her PR savvy earlier this year. Fischer
disarmingly went to the point: Conducting can easily inflate the
ego - so he keeps in mind that the conductor is the servant of the
music and the composer. In doing so, Fischer says, he is very aware
that he does not posses the key to certain pieces and composers and
therefore doesn't try to open them.
For the full interview go to WGMS' internet radio station
VivaLaVoce's website.
Comments:
Congratulations, Jens, on this important interview of an
increasingly important presence on the Nation's Capital's musical
scene. And good luck on all your future musical and educational
work with WGMS and its web-affiliate.
However, I believe that the following sentence in your review above
requires clarification:
"His opening concert, meanwhile, opens with a tribute to the NSO
and Maestro Slatkin in the form of the new American work [sic],
Robert Henderson's "Einstein's Violin"."
How is this ten year old work by, I believe, a still London-based
American music critic and composer, a tribute to the NSO and
Maestro Slatkin? Did Mr Slatkin commission the work for one of his
British affiliate orchestras a decade or so ago?
And frankly, while I welcome Ivan Fischer's more formalized return
to the Nation's Capital, and the NSO, as NSO principal guest
conductor, his programming for the next season strikes me as
uninspired, except perhaps for the program matching shorter works
by Sibelius, Kodaly, and Richard Strauss. Don't you think that
perhaps the American Youth Orchestra or the Montgomery County
Classic Youth Orchestra could have been retained by Michael Kaiser
and the Kennedy Center for the not that difficult to perform
all-Mendelssohn and Shakespeare tribute, freeing the NSO for more
challenging European, American, and Asian classical repertoire,
including important repetoire from the 20th century?
Unless he quickly shows greater independence and programming
strength, I personally will not look forward to the possibility,
mentioned by some, of Mr Fisher replacing Mr Slatkin as the NSO new
chief music director. (The importance of this position going to a
world-renowned American conductor, such as Kent Nagano, versus a
European, Asian, or Latin American conductor is another subject...)
Lastly, I compliment the Kennedy Center and the NSO on finally
facing reality and lowering in price by 10 per cent the rear
orchestra seats (20% of the floor?),which are hardly ever filled
thus costing the Kennedy Center precious box office revenues,
citizen good-will, and classical music education and outreach.
By Garth Trinkl, at October 18, 2006 9:55 AM
Next time I talk to Fischer, I'll suggest that his program choices
are uninspired. :) If it takes Fischer to make the NSO play
Mendelssohn well, I'll take it. Call me a snob, but I don't want to
hear the American Youth Orchestra or the Montgomery County Classic
Youth Orchestra do Mendelssohn.
I would not worry about him replacing Slatkin, at any rate. I think
the rumor (is there a substantial one) is not going to materialize
at all.
cheers,
jfl
By jfl, at October 18, 2006 5:57 PM
Well, Jens, then there will remain a HUGE amount of
Shakespeare-themed humanist, Western classical music that
Washington regional audiences will probably never hear in their
lifetimes because of the NSO's largely unimaginative programming
and your insistence that you only want to hear the musicians of the
NSO perform Mendelssohn, rather than comparably fine younger
semi-professional musical talent. I also hope you will quickly let
Mr Fischer and the NSO know that you disapprove of the NSO uniting
with the Women of the University of Maryland Concert Choir for
these February concerts, when there are 'much finer' and more
professional choristers available in the Washington region.
*
(I apologize for misspelling Fischer one time above.)
*
cheers,
gt
By Garth Trinkl, at October 19, 2006 12:37 PM
I am not saying they should not play it... just that I would not
likely be there to hear it. Aside: What is the problem with
Mendelssohn played well by the NSO? It's not precluding other bands
to play whatever music they should like to play.
Shakespeare-related or not.
By jfl, at October 19, 2006 11:10 PM
"What is the problem with Mendelssohn played well by the NSO?"
No problem, Jens. The NSO has performed well, and recently, many of
the symphonies, the violin concerto, and some of the Mendelssohn
oratorios. In my view, the NSO's very expensive professional
services are not required for the 'incidental' music to Midsummer
Nights Dream -- given the other highly skilled talent in the region
(if not a world-class music conservatory). Up to a half dozen,
lesser explored, world emerging classical music masterpieces --
from Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Asia --
could be explored in the 50 or 55 minutes it takes to perform the
complete incidental music to MsND.
In my view, it is yours and Charles job, as new national
intellectual and musical leaders, to think about and propose the
best use of the NSO's resources.
Would you have been happy (had you been here) with Washington's
musical, intellectual, and spiritual life before Robert Aubry Davis
launched, on public radio, 'Millennium of Music' over a generation
ago, and introduced dozens of pre-Bach masterpieces to national
listeners -- works now in the musical consciousnesses of many in
the Washington regional audience members?
I personally look forward to the time that the Kennedy Center's and
the NSO's classical programming is as well curated as the programs
of the National Gallery of Art or the Freer-Sackler Galleries -- or
even the Library of Congress.
gt
By Garth Trinkl, at October 23, 2006 9:47 AM
Fischer is a tremendous conductor. His BFO is one of the most
distinctive sounding orchestras today. (Their discs of Dvorak,
Brahms, Bartok, etc., are all terrific.) For that I can almost
forgive him for wasting time on Mahler, the single most overrated
composer in the history of music for all who do not recognize the
tacky, hysterical drivel he produced as music.
By the way, just what in the name of geography are the "Tartar
Mountains?" Are they crusty deposits on teeth, or gobs of sauce for
fried fish? Maybe the author meant the TATRAS?
-anti-Mahler
By Anonymous, at November 02, 2006 9:12 PM
Fischer's Mahler's 6th
http://ionarts.blogspot.com/2005/11/fischers-mahlers-6th.html
5.11.28
Contributed by jfl
available at Tower Records
G. Mahler, Symphony No. 6, I. Fischer / BFO
The ticker has barely come in with news of Iván Fischer's
appointment as Principal Guest Conductor of the National Symphony
Orchestra, when Fischer issues the first Mahler recording of his
career. It almost feels as though Fischer is flirting with me.
Doesn't he know that nothing makes me so gentle like a lamb and
weak in the knees as does good Mahler? Ten years studying,
preparing and playing Mahler finally led him to the courage to
record the Austrian giant's sixth symphony - Mahler's harshest one
in many ways... but also one that, once you are acquainted with it,
is an endless source of delight. It comes close on the heels of
Abbado's live 6th with the Berlin Philharmonic, and it is only
natural to compare the two. Additionally, I ran it against other
modern versions: Pierre Boulez (DG), Charles Mackerras (BBC Music
Magazine disc 251), Benjamin Zander (Telarc), and Mariss Jansons
(LSO live). Just to remind myself what it is not I also blew the
dust off Barbirolli (EMI Rouge et Noire / EMI double forte),
Karajan (DG Originals), Mitropoulos (EMI Great Conductors of the
Century), and Kubelik (DG), most of which I wrote about in my
Abbado review.
Conductor
Allegro Scherzo Andante Finale Total
Mitropoulos 59
18:51 11:40 14:30 29:38 74:42
Barbirolli 67
21:14 13:53 (*) 15:51 32:43 83:53
Kubelik 69
21:07 11:41 14:39 26:37 74:16
Karajan 74
22:09 13:16 17:03 30:00 82:54
Boulez 94
23:06 12:19 14:47 29:10 79:22
Zander 01
25:27 12:29 16:23 31:59 86:18
Mackerras 02
18:36 12:01* 14:10 30:02 74:52
Jansons 02
23:01 12:55* 15:13 30:43 81:52
Abbado 04
22:48 12:43* 13:57 29:44 79:13
Fischer 05
22:23 12:52* 13:43 29:23 78:49
The timings put Fischer close to Abbado's most recent - and the
recordings have been said to be alike. There is certainly some
truth to that... both are more or less 'well-behaved' readings that
don't overdo the dark and brooding nature of this symphony. Both
take the Andante first and neither include the "Essen-Version"
third hammer-blow. Both are smooth and superbly executed. The
Channel recording has a distinct advantage on the sound (in both,
regular or SACD version -- the acoustic of the Budapest National
Concert Hall, opened in March of 2005, makes this the best-sounding
Fischer recording on Channel Classics) and in emotional vibrancy,
too. I find Fischer more charged, taut... slightly less patrician,
less floating. The latter two qualities can make for some of the
greatest Mahler - just not, in my opinion, in the sixth. (The
current edition of the American Record Guide takes the Abbado
recording to task for that very reason: "This is the most benign
and effete Mahler 6 I have have ever heard. I [...] can't imagine
one less fiery and energetic than this. For a moment, I wondered if
it was a deliberate send-up of the symphony" (Nov/Dec 05). Harsh,
but essentially my feelings, too. Abbado's Mahler 6 is too shy,
friendly, apologetic. The 6th is better at being nasty and a hyena.
It doesn't have to be (Fischer proves that point, and so does
Karajan) - but it surely ought not be Nemo, the friendly clown
fish.
As always in the sixth, the question as to which inner movement to
place first comes up. Should the conductor go with Mahler the
Composer's plan of having the Scherzo first, hammering away right
after the very similar Allegro... or should he follow Mahler the
Conductor, who ultimately placed the Adagio before the Scherzo? The
last couple of years conductors seem to have preferred the latter -
in years before, conductors almost uniformly placed the Scherzo
first. (Barbirolli is the exception - in his EMI recording he
decided that the Andante should come first. In the first re-issue
(or perhaps already in the orginal) a well-meaning editor reversed
the order... perhaps to conform to standard practice. In the latest
reissue on the EMI double forte the original sequence has been
restored.)
Fischer does not pretend that this is a clear-cut matter. I quote
from his comments in the liner notes:
Putting the scientific arguments aside I have been fascinated by
the question of what Mahler's doubts felt like when he suddenly
abandoned his beautifully constructed original symphonic plan.
To relive this experience we took the sixth symphony on a long
European tour and changed the order of the middle movements
every single concert. In the Scherzo-Andante peformances the
transitions from one movement to the next felt wonderful, the
whole architecture made sense but I felt a clear unease about
the size and weight of the Scherzo after the first movement. In
the Andante-Scherzo concerts there was a fantastic balance and
variety. I became convinced that Mahler's abrupt decision was a
stroke of genius.
I've said before: Who am I to differ with luminary conductors who
know more about Mahler than I ever shall. Alas, from my level of
understanding I respectfully disagree. The left-right double blow
does not concern me much in a symphony that is supposed to be
devastating, anyway. In fact, I like it. Nor does the similarity of
the Allegro and Scherzo disturb my listening pleasure. And the
transitions make much more sense in the original order... listening
and reading the symphony, there can be no doubt that it definitely
was composed in and for the original order. Performance practices
(or compromises) concern me less. The fact that Fischer's shift
from Allegro to Andante is less than smooth (not nearly as organic
as Mackerras, who chose the same order) does not help his cause,
either. (It should be said, though, that this moment is about the
only performance-related quibble I have with the CD.)
And then of course there is the issue of two vs. three hammerblows.
Fischer feels the following way about it:
Even if Alma Mahler was right and it was Mahler's superstition
that made him erase the fatal deathblow from the final version I
feel there must have been another reason, too. I am convinced
that the muted climax near the end is better. It is less
theatrical and with its modest sound it balances beautifully
with the final desperate outburst. This great finale is better
with two hammer blows.
Again, I disagree. First of all I am not sure if "less theatrical"
is really something desireable to aim for in a Mahler symphony...
or 'modesty' for that matter. And I simply don't find the third
hammerblow cheap or crude... I find it utterly devastating, heart-
and neck-breaking. The third hammerblow, striking a few bars later
than one would expect, is the death sentence. The 'hero' is felled
like a tree. In the version sans hammerblow - with the slightly
reduced orchestration around these bars - the hero receives
something more akin to a slap on the ass. It may be enough to make
him tumble... but it lacks the compelling drama I love in the 6th.
For all these choices, Fischer's 6th is still one of the finest I
have heard in quite a while. I don't agree with some of the high
praise heaped on Jansons' LSO live recording, which I find
distinctly blasé, even unengaging and boring. That, Fischer is
never. Boulez, too, isn't unlike Fischer - only that Boulez is
meaner, more taut at a few places and his recording is - next to
Zander - one of the last to put the Scherzo first. Fischer's
strength is that he manages fluidity and a wonderful lyrical
approach without emasculating the symphony too much. I find
Zander's sixth exceptional - but especially those who complain
about an erratic quality and pulled tempi in Zander should find the
Fischer to be near ideal. At least on non-high-end systems, the
sound of the Fischer is a good deal better than Abbado, because of
increased presence and audibility of the soft parts. The Abbado
recording may not be bad, despite its low levels... but what is the
point if it only sounds impressive on a high-end system that has
Wilson Watt Puppies as rear (!) speakers. This is the first
recording of any kind in the Palace of Arts in Budapest (which
houses the Concert Hall), and it promises many a great sounding
recording to come.
Channel Classics CCS SA 22905
Comments (7):
Sir you are correct on the preferred order of middle movements AS
HEARD and well supported by Henri Louis de la Grange in the Vienna,
1904-07 Volume of his Mahler Biography, pp 813-814. About the
hammerblows he is somewhat noncommittal but his analysis of the
drafts of the Sixth seem to support two blows not three, and there
is no doubt that in Essen the performance toned down the
hammerblows with each successive blow, clearly the kind of impact
Mahler wished. Nonetheless the dramatic impact of the third cannot
be gainsaid and it would be foolish to be dogmatic.
Rune Eggpoe
By rune eggpoe, at November 28, 2005 7:49 PM
rune eggpoe -- like the recently deceased poet?? i thought i had
HLdlG on my side as concerns the hammerblows... but i have not yet
found his mahler biography in german and yet to read this just
about definitive and seminal work. there are some who say that the
recomposed section with the emasculated hammerblow is more
intricate and allows the work to breath better... but perhaps i am
a sucker for spectacle and effect. after all, i like classical
music for the (cheap) emotional thrills it gives me. and
dramatacially, i guess, you really don't need all that might to
fell a hero that has barely scrambled to get back up on his feet a
second time... your point stands unassailable: no reason to be
dogmatic - just reason to revel in ones own subjective enjoyment.
clearly it doesn't take a third hammerblow to make for a great 6th
- as this delight of a recording proves.
jfl
By jfl, at November 28, 2005 11:04 PM
errata corrige: i _thought_ i had HLdlG on my side as regards the
movement order... i had not been sure about his take on the
hammerblows.
By jfl, at November 28, 2005 11:06 PM
JFL de la Grange is rather ambiguous but makes clear Mahler planned
5 blows at first and the cut to two at end makes most sense for
structure; and a DIMINISHED impact in the third blow was always in
the plan of the movement.
Rune Eggpoe
ps you may have confusion with late Poet & journalist Lerrie Eggpoe
By rune eggpoe, at November 29, 2005 12:01 PM
I have not heard this particular recording, but wanted to comment
on the general issue of performance controversy for the 6th. I
think it's fair to say that Mahler's final intent is very clear:
Andante-Scherzo, two hammerblows. Despite unsubstantiated claims
from Walter and others as to Mahler changing his mind, there is no
evidence for this. During his lifetime, as we know, the work was
never performed any other way.
That being said, I find that in actual performance practice, Mahler
shouldn't have second-guessed himself. Scherzo-Andate is much more
compelling IMO, both because of the key relationships and because
of the impact of having the aching beauty of the Andante precede
the catastrophe of the Finale. I also believe that, when executed
correctly, three hammerblows are preferred. Unfortunately, I've yet
to hear a 3-blow recording wherein they were handled totally
convincingly. I think the NYP Bernstein comes pretty close, except
that the thud of the hammer is not distinct from that of a bass
drum, which may in fact be exactly what is used. Solti blunders by
making the first blow weak, the 2nd inaudible and the 3rd
startlingly loud.
For all the hooplah, I think one of the worst aspects of Zander's
recording is the hammerblows. Sure, they're big and distinct, but
too much so. They stand out garishly, heightening the sense that
they are a cheap theatrical "GOTCHA!" tool rather than being
integrated into the music. And what happened to the cymbal and
tam-tam crash for the second hammer blow? If they're there, they
are inaudible. And David Hurwitz has written extensively on
Zander's blooper with the 3rd hammerblow (as well as his other
errors, which are numerous).
Sadly, despite wanting 3 great hammerblows, the best hammerblows
I've heard all seem to be in the performances that have just two.
Particularly MTT's recording with the San Francisco Symphony--those
are two damned mighty hammerblows, but whatever is making the big
thud is very well integrated with the orchestra. The impact of the
2nd blow is hair-raising, despite it being less loud than the
first. Abbado's blows are also spectacular, but I have many qualms
about the rest of the performance that make them not totally worth
the effort.
I guess my point is that, for me, the ideal hammerblows--be they 2
or 3--are not theatrical and garish, but at the same time have an
enormous impact. It's a tricky balance, but necessary to really
convey Mahler's meaning, IMO. It's obvious they are important, or
he wouldn't have put them in (which is why I find Boulez's choice
to entirely eliminate the hammer sound reprehensible). But they
shouldn't be as all-consumingly important like Zander makes them
out to be. That does indeed cheapen the music.
By BorisG, at December 20, 2005 1:43 AM
"I think it's fair to say that Mahler's final intent is very clear:
Andante-Scherzo, two hammerblows. Despite unsubstantiated claims
from Walter and others as to Mahler changing his mind, there is no
evidence for this. During his lifetime, as we know, the work was
never performed any other way."
I disagree with that to the extend that I think that a performer's
compromise, doubts and superstitiousness don't necessarily overrule
the composer's intent - even if they were one and the same person.
But that is a mute point since we agree wholeheartedly on
Scherzo-Andante issue and in theory on the Hammerblow issue... even
if you have not heard it to your Platonic-ideal-liking in
performance. I have yet to read Hurwitz' statements on the Zander
6th. I used to disagree much and even dislike the ponderous
opinions of Hurwitz - but lately I've found myself much in
agreement with him. It seems I've come around. (Or has he? :) )
Have you heard the Mackerras recording (w/3 blows)? I think we
could make a Truffault-like suspense thriller out of this issue:
"The Three Blows"
Thanks for the insightful and detailed comments.
By jfl, at December 31, 2005 12:11 PM
Thanks for the reply, jfl.
"I disagree with that to the extend that I think that a performer's
compromise, doubts and superstitiousness don't necessarily overrule
the composer's intent - even if they were one and the same person."
I'm not sure I follow you here. If you're saying that Mahler might
have been "mistaken" in his final choice, I certainly agree (as I
said). But I don't see how we can possibly believe, except through
pure conjecture, that Mahler's final version wasn't his final
intent. He presumably would have had every power to change it back
to what he intended if that's what he wanted to do.
As I said, there is no evidence that Mahler made his revisions to
the 6th out of a spirit of compromise or superstition. Indeed,
given his history of revising works, it was completely in line with
his actions on previous symphonies (though perhaps more drastic).
He revised numerous aspects of the score for the 6th at the same
time he deleted the 3rd blow and reversed the inner movements. If
we're to believe he was revising out of compromise or superstition,
why is there no argument over these other alterations? Keep in mind
that the first draft of the finale actually had *five* hammerblows.
If removing the third was merely superstition, what about the two
others he also edited out?
The hammerblow superstition argument makes a nice story, but I
think really it's just a made-up justification for including the
third hammerblow and pretending Mahler would have wanted it that
way. It's unnecessary, though, since it's accepted performance
practice now to include it or not, so no such justifications are
needed, other than the particular idea the conductor has for his
interpretation.
I also disagree with Hurwitz a lot when it comes to tastes, but I
mentioned his article on Zander because it's not a review of a
performance, but rather a factual dissection of Zander's claims
about the music and his performance. For an example of when Hurwitz
is egregiously wrong, see his review of the Brahms 4th by Bernstein
on DG. It's blasphemy. :)
I will try to find the Mackerras recording you mentioned. I have to
admit to not being a big fan of his in general, but I'll give
anything a shot on a recommendation.
Thanks for reading, and best regards.
By BorisG, at January 21, 2006 4:27 PM