Ivor,
Perhaps you're directing your comments towards me; I don't know. Regardless, I want to chime in on this topic. Everyone has a right to their own likes and dislikes. When comparing and debating these kinds of issues, it's my thought that people should be prepared to express what it is that they do like about a particular recording, passage, phrasing, etc. But in the broader sense, I take a somewhat different stance on this topic.
I believe that the entire concept of interpretation is somewhat misunderstood, and badly abused by many folks. People speak of interpretations as though they were magic keys that unlock the classics for us. I think that just the opposite is true. Works that are "classics" remain classics, and endure a wide range of interpretations. But what is an interpretation? The concept of interpretation applies much more broadly to earlier composers. Why? Because they had put far less information into their scores as to how their works should be performed, and at what speeds, etc. As we move closer to our times, scores become much more specific on these issues. Mahler is a great example of this. If you've ever noticed, while Mahler performances encompass a very wide range of tempi - from very fast to very slow - the phrasing is nearly identical on most of them. That's because Mahler went as far as building the phrasing that he wanted, into the way he notated his rhythms. In that sense, his scores are almost "interperpretaton proof". Ironically, the one place that Mahler was rather open ended about things, was in regards to absolute tempo - what metronome marking - and in terms of tempo relationships: tempo modifications from one section to the next. But beyond that, Mahler scores are extremely specific about instrumentation, balances, dynamics, phrasing, etc.
Why am I mentioning all this? Because I believe that with Mahler - and many of the other "moderns" - you have to begin with "realizations" first. By that, I mean that performances and recordings need to observe all of the specifications that Mahler puts into his scores, before moving on to the more vague and subjective world of "interpretation". In other words, there has to be a sort of minimum standard before what somebody is conducting (or performing, from the other side of the podium) becomes real Mahler. After everything - or most everything - that the composer wrote gets "realized", it's only then that the "interpretation" can begin. In other words, a certain amount of interpretation IS inevitable, but only after you've observed what it is that the composer actually composed. When a conductor has gone against any of these specifications in the score, he/she had better be prepared to present something that enhances the work, and doesn't end up subtracting from it in the long run. In most cases of blantantly going against what the composer wrote, the composer was usual right in the first place. The recent James De Priest Mahler 5 is a perfect example of this.
In the finale to M5, while approaching the final brass chorale peroration, De Priest slows down many, many bars before Mahler specifies any kind of ritard in tempo. When you compare what he does to what Mahler actually wrote, boy, is De Priest ever in the wrong! Now, you can say, "yeah, but that's his interpretation". No doubt. But here's a classic example of doing one's own interpretation, in spite of what's written, but the result clearly detracts from the work. Now, you could say, "I don't care what Mahler wrote; I think what De Priest did is brilliant". That's fine - everybody has a right to their likes and dislikes. But you have to at least acknowledge that you're liking something that goes absolutely against the grain of what the composer wrote. At that point, the issue becomes a fact, and not an opinion. What De Priest is doing goes against what Mahler wrote. It's absolutey no different that changing some of the notes - that's how drastic it is.
Obviously, NOBODY likes it when somebody corrects them, or expresses an opinion in a rather aggressive way. No doubt, I'm guilty of just that from time to time. I freely admit to not having a lot of patience when it comes to the supposed merits of historical recordings. As we move closer to our times, I feel that they become less useful and relevant. This gets into a whole 'nother topic and debate, but it often ends up with somebody making the proclamation, "I don't care what the sound is like!". Or, "sound just isn't that important". I always find that a very odd comment because music IS sound. That's what it is: sound! That should be self-evident. Therefore, I think that there's often times a lot of wishful thinking among enthusiasts of historical recordings - a lot of "connecting the dots" in their minds.
I don't know, Ivor, if you're reacting to my comments on the Fried M2. If so, I think I've been very clear about it. All that I can hear in that particular recording is an outline of a performance. It's sort of like seeing only the shape of a building from a rather far distance. I can't hear "into" that particular recording. I can't hear what Mahler wrote, other than just tempi. To me - on my particular sound systems - this is a case where one has to connect the dots to a very, very great extent. Therfore, I question just how purposeful such a recording is. What I freely admit, is that I'm not trying to listen to it on state of the art equipment - far from it! I'm honest enough to admit that. If somebody wants to say to me, "I don't care how it sounds - I like it anyway"; that's fine, I can perfectly except that kind of explanation.
So, if I've tresspassed upon you, please understand that it's coming from these basic concepts of how I view the musical world. Quite truthfully, I really go against the grain of many, many record collectors. But when I don't know something, I'll gladly and freely admit it. For me, recordings of Mahler scores have to begin as "realizations" first, and "interpretations" second. All change orders to the plans and specifications have to be approved by me first
Simply put, my view of the classical music world is more composer driven, and less performer driven. The composer is the true hero for me.
Topic: Interpretations and opinions (Read 11116 times)