Conductor Leonard Bernstein

[john haueisen]

I know this may be (is likely to be) something many of you have discussed before, but there are newbies among us (including me!) who would like to know what "the pros" think of Bernstein. 

I'm sure Barry will not be shy about expressing an opinion, but it would be great to hear what various others opine regarding Bernstein.

Personally, I like him, but that may be personal feelings based on how much he seems to enjoy and admire Mahler.
--John H. 

[Leo K]

Well, Lenny introduced me to Mahler in his Harvard Lecture Series on LP many years ago.

I've listened to his DG cycle more than his Sony (I'll get these on SACD eventually).  In fact, I've listened to it so much I had to put his DG Mahler away for many years so I could hear other interpetations! 

His DG M5 is 1st among my top 3 M5's (with Bertini/EMI, and Haitink/RCO).  Barry has heard Lenny perform this live, and says it was far better than the recording.

His DG M1 is simply gorgeous in tone and execution, especially the Finale.  His DG M2 is absolutley agressive in the best sense of the word, sprawling, mean and glorious at the end. 

His DG M3 is perhaps too long, as Barry has said, and it's been so long since I've last heard it, but I'll re-purchase if I see it used.  His DG M4 is nice, with a boy soprano to sing the Finale...I like the concept, but I sold it!

His DG M6 is among my favorites, and no one can make this music hysterical quite like Lenny can...For all it's power and texture, I feel the first movement is too rushed, or unstructured perhaps.  The inner movements are both "over the top" emotionally in a great way, and the Finale is very powerful.  I still quite enjoy this M6.

It's been so long since I've heard Lenny's DG M7...I can't comment.  I also don't know his DG M8 well enough to really comment, and I have just bought this used again last year.

His DG M9 is an essential M9, and a top tier favorite of mine (I know this is John Kim's top choice, if I remember correctly).  I highly recommend the Japanese release of this recording for slightly better sound over the US release (yet it is very pricey from Japan).  I like Lenny's BPO M9 (on the Memories label) even more...just incredible playing thoughout, and faster overall I believe.  His BPO M9 (also on DG) is very moving, but flawed in the Adagio, because of the famous missed entry from the trombones at the climax.

So, yes, overall I love Bernstein's Mahler! 

--Todd

[John Kim]

Speaking of the Lenny old vs. Lenny new, here is my rating

M1 DG > Sony
M2 Sony > DG
M3 Sony = DG
M4 Sony > DG
M5 DG > Sony
M6 Sony > DG
M7 Sony = DG
M8 Sony > DG
M9 DG > Sony
M10 Adagio DG > Sony

John,

[akiralx]

I think he is slightly overrated though his DG M1 is very fine, one of my favourites for that work. 

Whenever I have heard any of his earlier NYPO cycle (three or four of them) I've never liked them and been amazed at how slackly they are played compared to more modern recordings.  I think I 'get' Bernstein up to a point but the execution seems off in those recordings.  Some of the DG cycle are not helped by the glassy sound, e.g. M6.

[Dave H]

In response to John H's question, I think it's salutary to refer to Christa Ludwig's autobiography in describing Bernstein. She says (and forgive me for paraphrasing--I don't have the book with me as I write): "There a world of difference between a great musician and genius, and Bernstein was a genius." Like all geniuses, he could sometimes be perverse in his interpretations, but what strikes me most of all about Bernstein's work, in Mahler as in anything else, was his desire to communicate his vision of the work. Some say that the vividness of his interpretations was the result of narcissism, or a cheap pursuit of sensationalistic effect. I disagree strongly. Bernstein saw himself, perhaps first and foremost, as a teacher, and like all good teachers he could be prone to exaggerate for the sake of the point, but if you study his interpretations score in hand you will find that he very seldom does anything that is not clearly motivated by what the composer wrote.

I pointed this out in one of the very first reviews I wrote for High Fidelity back in the 1980s, (in connection with his DG Tchaikovsky Sixth, with the VERY slow finale), and he had his assistant call my editor to thank me for being one of the few critics who he felt understood what he had been trying to achieve. I say this not to boast, but because it confirms the point I am trying to make from as close to the source and we can get. Nowhere is this aspect of his art more true than in his Mahler, which, compared to most other conductors, is extremely faithful both to the letter and spirit of what Mahler's scores. This has become particularly evident today, when many conductors (including Sinopoli, Rattle, Segerstam, and many others) routinely engage in exaggerations and distortions far more excessive than anything Bernstein ever did. So I would argue that the reason his Mahler was and remains so pursuasive is because he lets us hear more of what MAHLER wanted than most other conductors in this music, and he had the sheet talent and personal magnetism to get the orchestras he worked with to follow him.

Dave H

[John Kim]

I consider Leonard Bernstein as the most authentic and authoritative Mahler conductor ever lived for one single reason:

In my mind, the closest to seeing and listening to Mahler conducting his own works would be to listen to Lenny's Mahler recordings

Mahler's Mahler and Bernstein's Mahler would have been pretty close.

John,

[john haueisen]

AMEN John! 
Have you seen the absolute delight that Lenny brings to his conducting of Mahler?
He dances, delights, revels, prances, and sometimes I almost think he's going to fly away into the skies (or at least the ceiling of the concert hall).

[Jot N. Tittle]

To echo what Bernstein said of Mahler, there were two Bernsteins. That is to say, hearing Bernstein conduct Mahler could be a different experience from seeing the same. Who was it who said that everything Bernstein conducted was essentially a Concerto for Conductor and Orchestra?

On the DG DVDs of Lenny conducting Mahler, Lenny dominates the screen and, hence, tends to dominate one's attention--as John's description demonstrates. For all of Lenny's emotional exertions, the orchestra almost never looks at him. As one member said, they dare not for fear of laughing.

The real contribution he made to the performance of Mahler, I venture to say, was in the preparatory study and rehearsals. The resulting performances of the orchestra were the proof that he was a great Mahler conductor.

     . & '

[barry guerrero]

I guess we could say that Bernstein had three distinct periods of Mahler interpretation. By "interpretations", I basically mean tempo relationships, as matters of texture, phrasing, balances, and local effects, essentially remained consistent (based on doing what the scores say, as Dave points out). The early period - the 60's - is perhaps that one that all of us are most familiar with. They featured the N.Y. Phil., and tempi tended to be on the fast side (allegedly, Bernstein wanted to the M9/IV slower, but was encouraged not to because of the constraints of LP sides). For my money, this still remains his best overall period.

Then came the 70's, obviously, and Bernstein's big break from the N.Y. Phil. While it may be an exaggeration that Bernstein taught
Mahler to the Vienna musicians, they certainly received a much bigger dose of it than they had in previous decades. More important, he brought Mahler home, so to speak, to the Viennese audience. Now Mahler is every bit as much standard Austro/German fare in Vienna as Beethoven or Brahms. Some folks feel that Bernstein's 70's cycle, captured on video by Unitel, was his best period from a purely conducting standpoint - combining that which is best about his early and late Mahler. To some extent, I agree with this idea. However, the Vienna M8, great as it truly is, is remarkably similar to his earlier London one from a purely conceptual basis.

Bernstein's 80's Mahler employed slower tempi (M4 is an obvious exception), but also exposed a certain deepening of his interpretative profile. Perhaps his Amsterdam M9 is the most radical example of late Bernstein, as his Rondo-Burlesque was fast and furious, only to be followed by one of the slowest and most introspective adagios (4th movement) imaginable. Bernstein had been penciled in to do an M8 in Amsterdam. I, for one, am sorry that that never materialized. But, we have two generally outstanding M8's from Bernstein as it is. That, my friends, is where I'll leave my zwei groschen regarding Bernstein's Mahler. I have no regrets that he didn't take up the M10 cause, as we have plenty of folks doing that already.

Barry

[sbugala]

Bernstein's one of my favorites, as a conductor for just about anything. The only thing going against him is there are so many great Mahler recordings today.  But except for his New York Mahler 5th, I can't think of a recording of his for Mahler that was ever less than good. 

One day, I hope more live recordings of his come out.  I imagine that there are some pretty awesome things in several vaults out there. They could blow his live DG cycle away.

An aside. Evidently, Bernstein was supposed to do a live Mahler 8th in Dec. 1990 with the New York Phil. My friend had a ticket to that concert that ended up being led by Samuel Wong.  I can't help but wonder if Bernstein had quit the cigarettes and refrained from some of the hard liquor, if  we'd have a few more recordings by him.

[john haueisen]

Remember the remark that Bernstein made (it may have been a "bonus" item on the Unitel series) when he explained his exuberant conducting mannerisms as stemming from his desire for the orchestra and public to feel Mahler symphonies the way he (Bernstein) did?

Do we have to be so skeptical as to think he was just making excuses for being a flashy conductor?  Couldn't Bernstein have truly been touched by Mahler's music in ways I know I am, and hope others are?

--John H

[barry guerrero]

Do we have to be so skeptical as to think he was just making excuses for being a flashy conductor? 

Of course not. All that matters is what's happening musically, not visually. If what he's doing jives with what the scores say to do, then there's not much to complain about. Of course, a conductor can be visually distracting, which is another issue.

Couldn't Bernstein have truly been touched by Mahler's music in ways I know I am, and hope others are?

Of course. Bernstein would be the first to would that he's trying to teach the music to new-comers through his genuine enthusiasm.

Barry

[Leo K]

Great posts here everyone...excellant commentary.

I really owe my continued interest in classical music to Lenny...when I was a teen, his Harvard lectures introduced me to all great things musical...Mahler, Ives, Debussy, Wagner, Berg and the list goes on and on...

--Todd

[Polarius T]

Jumping in a bit belatedly, I will just quickly agree with several of the posters above. The execution (in Lenny's work) just doesn't stand up to modern standards. As good as, let's say, NYPO may have been at the time, let's remember that this famed standing was also comparative: simply that others were worse. Today's orchestras and players are amazing, and the gap between good and mediocre is almost nonaudible at this point. Listening to Lenny & co.'s performances doesn't really give me much pleasure for that reason, no matter how much I strive to "get" their feeling. And I think it's more about that somewhat mysterious "feeling" present in his performances, or maybe evinced by them, than anything else. I don't think accuracy and precision or things like carefully calibrated balances, definition and articulation, or clarity of the structure were among his foremost artistic goals; rather, he seems to have been after the attributes of the event itself: performance as a collective rite and shared affective experience, as a worship in which is revealed the "truth" behind and beyond the text itself.

But I have the highest admiration for him as a pedagogue, and, as mentioned above, he really did seem like someone truly inspired and inspiring. Moreover we should never underestimate the importance of his ability to bring works, composers, genres, and the even the whole phenomenon of classical music as such to the awareness of so many around him. How many in the U.S. today would love Mahler's music as much as seems evident from also this board, had it not been for him quite personally? Without Lenny, I think, Mahler would have likely suffered the fate of someone like Hindemith, Krenek, or Schreker (heard of them lately?).

As I would understand it, his importance in reintroducing Mahler to European audiences seems also a bit exaggerated (to say nothing about "teaching Mahler" to the players there).

PT

[barry guerrero]

He (Bernstein) wasn't always the best conductor,   .   .   .   

Who is? Does such a person actually exist?

.     .     .   and his orchestras were not always the best.

N.Y. Phil.? Vienna Phil.? Amsterdam Concertgebouw? Come now, surely you jest (and don't call me Shirley  }. I think that a more accurate observation is that the N.Y. Phil. wasn't always recorded in the best venues; nor under the best circumstances. I also think that recording the VPO "live" in the Musikverein is more tricky to pull-off successfully than most folks are willing to admit. 

But he was a great teacher, who found a way to share his enthusiasm and inspired so many more people to hear and appreciate Mahler.

Certainly that's true. But I also think that all of those N.Y. Phil. recordings that he made of the standard orchestral literature, hold up far better against the competition than most people realize, or are willing to find out. The later recordings - generally slower in tempi - were often times more controversial. But there are some exceptions to that idea as well, such as his outstanding Schubert 9th with the Concertgebouw, or the blazing Sibelius 1 he made with the VPO.