From: dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker)
Subject: Re: Jascha Horenstein (Was Re: Mahler 9 (was Re: Mahler 1))
Organization: Camosun College, Victoria B.C, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:00:57 GMT

In article <BvuyIA.Kox@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.154102.15811@spang.Camosun.BC.CA> dbarker@spang.Camosun.BC.CA (Deryk Barker) writes:
>
>>In article <BvpvBJ.727@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>
>>>"Hysterical" is a rather judgemental word, isn't it, for what is after
>>>all a valid view of a composer whose works compass emotional extremes.
>>>If Mahler filled his scores with such minute detail, he did probably
>>>intend them to count for something, right?
>
>>It may be a judgemental word, although surely no more so than many
>>others. I fail to see what minute detail has to do with hysteria or
>>otherwise though.
>
>My point was that what you call "hysteria" I would call in many cases
>"conscientiously studying and absorbing the expressive point of the
>constant exhortations applied to nearly every measure."  Making them all
>"sound" may indeed seem hysterical to some tastes, but it would seem
>that this was the effect Mahler had in mind, since one avoids such an
>effect only by suppressing such markings.
>
>I should add that I don't go along with Bernstein all the way, either; a
>lot of his performances work for me, others pass me by.  But I find it
>simplistic to simply write off his Mahler career as "hysterical" (as
>opposed, presumably, to the more refined, proper taste of those who
>enjoy Horenstein).

Well so would I, but this is really not what I did. I said Bernstein
was either 'frequently' or 'sometimes' (can't remember which word I
used) hysterical. I said this to convey the way I feel his
interpretation can go on occasions. Which is not to say that I
necessarily always disagree with him - I am on record as saying that I
prefer his 1966 Mahler 8, as a *performance*, to any other I've. This
is not intended to be some sort of snobbish dismissal of his career,
conducting Mahler or anyone else, but his approach to the composer
seems to have become dominant in recent years, and there *are* other
ways of attacking the music.

>>>guess, and what it tells us is that things went seriously wrong on this
>>>occasion in (1959?).  No musical pleasure to be had here.
>
>>Now this *is* an interesting viewpoint. I have yet to track this
>>recording down, but know of many critics - including at least one in
>>Fanfare - who count it the finest of all, a far cry from your own
>>verdict. Neville Cardus's verdict on the performance in the
>>(Manchester) Guardian - reprinted in 'Cardus on Music' - was also very
>>complimentary. Of course the performance was probably under-rehearsed
>>etc. etc. It comes down again to the 'conception' of the piece, which
>>sometimes you just have to help reconstruct in your own mind, yes?
>
>If it seems worth it.  It doesn't add up to much musical pleasure,
>though; it's more a "studying for future reference" kind of activity.
>If this were the only extant sound document for the Mahler 8th, then
>yes, I guess I would spend hours listening carefully with score in hand
>and reconstructing what Mahler and Horenstein must have had in mind.
>Just as I did with the Bernstein/CBS recording's imperfections when it
>was the only good stereo recording.
>
>But why bother?  We *do* have recordings of the piece with not only a
>sufficent conception of it, but also acceptable realization thereof!
>Recordings that we can actually *enjoy* and *experience* while hearing
>them, rather than saying wisely to ourselves "Oh, yes, he must have had
>thusandso in mind, how impressive that might have been."

Well, once again, it's a matter of personal taste. For some people the
recording is the most important thing, for others it's the
performance. Frankly I can derive far more pleasure and satisfaction
from a great performance poorly recorded, than a wonderfully recorded
lousy performance. Flaws in the actual performance affact judgment as
well, but even they come secondary (in my mind) to the overall
conception of the performance. How could one bear to listen to many of
Schnabel's recordings were it otherwise?

>
>>Like your (I think it was your) view of Bernstein. Both of whose
>>recordings are just about adequate but not much more.
>
>Sure.  And again, I heard them for review purposes.  I can hear that
>he's after something magnificent.  But circumstances don't allow him to
>achieve it.  At least not as well as other easily available
>alternatives.  So neither Bernstein comes off my shelf any more.
>
>To call the Horenstein Mahler 8th "the greatest of all" is exactly the
>sort of harmful idolatry I was talking about.  Some poor schook may
>actually believe Cardus (or whoever), buy it, listen once, and conclude
>either that (a) Mahler is a fraud, (b) Horenstein is a fraud, or (c)
>record critics are unmusical morons.  Did Cardus actually *listen*, or
>did he follow the syllogism "This is by Horenstein.  Ergo, It must be
>the best.  QED"?

Cardus did neither. He reviewed the actual *concert* in 1959, and was
not completely uncritical either. I merely pointed out that one
Fanfare critic called the greatest of all, in order to establish the
fact that not everyone thought it was as much of an unmitigated
disaster as you do. I agree that it is rare that one can say something
as unequivocally direct about any performance or recording of a
masterpiece. 

>I *know* it must have been a monumental undertaking back then, and could
>not possibly have been adequately rehearsed at all points (it often
>isn't, even now; what helps is that all these recordings have
>familiarized us with the music that bit more, so players are more likely
>to sense "how it goes" without as much help).  I *know* that things can
>go wrong in live performance, and that tiny errors shouldn't negate our
>enjoyment of an otherwise good experience.  I also know that the vocal
>solos are so demanding that one's chance of a really fine septet of
>soloists on any given occasion is low.  But all these understandings
>don't make it any easier to enjoy the mess that took place on this
>occasion.  There's no point bothering with it any more, much less
>saluting it as some kind of excellence.

Well obviously you and the Fanfare critic disagree. I will wait until
it's reissued, and then voice my own opinion.

Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept., Camosun College, Victoria B.C.