From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Jascha Horenstein (Was Re: Mahler 9 (was Re: Mahler 1))
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:20:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Delaware

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).

>>I wouldn't say "burned," because I knew it was a risk and I collect
>>performances of this piece anyway, but the live performance of the
>>Mahler 8th (which I bought on LP around 1986) is pretty disastrous.  He
>>may have a great conception going on inside his head, but it didn't come
>>out on this occasion.  Meanwhile people are often not even in the same
>>measure at the same time, and it's a miracle that they can get back
>>together after some of the debacles.  This recording is a "document," I
>>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."

>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"?

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.

Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical