We can use "gestalt" as well, the terminological point is not important here: the form/shape that Klemp's M9 emerges as distinct from other performances ("interpretatively" and not in terms of "technical" ensemble qualities like discipline).
I think youy are drawing a distinction here that is demonstrably false. The form/shape cannot be separated from the technical qualities of the ensemble realizing it, because it is their technical ability that permits its realization in the first place. Let me give you an example: Hermann Scherchen took fifteen minutes over the Adagietto of the Mahler 5th with the Philadelphia strings and nearly half that time in his official Vienna recording. Why? Because he explained that the Philly strings could sustain the slow tempo. So which performance reflects his "conception?" Obviously both do, but both are conditioned by technical apparatus at his disposal. The conception does not exist independently of the act of performance, however, well-planned or thought-out it might be. Similarly, if a conductor is working with players who are not at their best, or more to the point in Klemperer's case, he is incapable of getting them to give their best, then it's an open question as to how valid an example of his conception of the work has been presented and (in recordings) preserved. If he can't play the third movement up to tempo, then the form/shape of his performance may be unique, but not in a good way, and it may not be reflective of his view of the work.
Why not? Your "stiff" is my "emphatic"; your "stodgy" is my "deliberate." Isn't that all just about your conception of what he's doing?
No, it isn't. "Stiff" means something quite different from "emphatic," and "stodgy" suggests a very different quality than does "deliberate." Obviously people can disagree about these things to a certain degree, but ultimately reasonable people must share a basic understanding of what such descriptive terms mean to be able to communicate at all. And the issue is not what these things mean to you in an abstract sense. It is what they mean as a function of what the music demands for its most effective presentation as evidenced by the score, the performance tradition, and musicality of the performers, etc. This all adds up to some pretty definite parameters that can be used to describe a given performance contextually. I can acknowledge and enjoy Klemperer's deliberation while decrying his stodginess--one quality does not suggest the other. Nor is this a zero some game. I can accept that you enjoy this performance for its outstanding moments (and I keep it on hand because I would agree that it has some), while acknowledging its faults, whether or not we agree about how serious those are. But they are there, and many of them are facts, not opinions.
Sure enough if you put it this way, but I certainly would not say the Klemp recording falls into this category. His personal trademarks are there in it for all to hear. You and I could tell it apart from any other, after the first five or so notes, any time, in any listening conditions, just because of what we know of this conductor based on his other, possible more fully realized interpretations. I don't think there is any need to project as much as you seem to think to recognize his particular script, so to speak (especially with the very decent recorded sound that lets you hear pretty well what's going on, surely better than what, for instance, Szell ever got committed on tape at around the same time).
I think you are exaggerating quite a bit. "Five notes or so?" You must be a much better listener than I, particularly with respect to the opening of the Ninth Symphony! I can accept the notion that there was a distinctive "Klemperer/Philharmonia sound" (forward wind balances, etc), and I can accept that you want to hear that sound in this particular work. But that's a very different thing than suggesting that BECAUSE you hear that sound in this particular work, you are listening to a great performance of it. All you are hearing is a "characteristic" performance, and not even a very good one, at least compared to those works in which Klemperer is both characteristic and clearly getting the orchestra to play magnificently. Because, if you want to raise the issue of Klemperer's work in its larger context, we know for a fact that he was not a slob when it came to ensemble (far from it!), and that while his tempos were often deliberate he did not become stodgy until the very end of his life. From this evidence we can say pretty definitively that his Ninth is probably not entirely representative of his intentions. Your argument cuts both ways. I also think we need to beware of "the cult of mediocrity," the suggestion that technical insufficiency is somehow characterful or "honest," and that brilliance in this respect is suspect. As I said, this is not a zero sum game. All artists try to do their best, and as listeners we have every right to expect and demand the highest possible standards at all times.
But then I'm curious, how do we tell that, for instance, a particular conductor only wants to exhibit his own ideas and not the composer's notions embedded in some particular work, as you for example have yourself observed in a number of instances in your reviews? (Assuming there is no indisputable deviation from the printed score.)
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking here. The question makes no sense to me.
I think it's simply perfectly OK to reject a particular performance as personally significant by saying that well, it just isn't played well enough for me to enjoy it. I constantly encounter recordings like that. But it's a bit of a different issue than claiming incompetence or failure. Moreover I think the better the performance, the less we hear of the conductor's "conception" of it and the more in it the work itself or its author seems newly revealed. As in here, for me, all things considered.
Why do you have a problem with the notions of incompetence or failure? If a plumber came to fix your toilet and he left it still running, even though you could flush it, you would call him a failure, or incompetent, wouldn't you? His failure need not be total or absolute. You might even demand that he come back and fix the problem, or refuse to pay his bill. How is music any different (other than that they can't come back and fix the problem)? Performers fail all the time, often in most abysmal ways. And I also think that he we recognized these failures for what they are and said as much we would have higher standards, and much humbler and more honest artists. Particularly in Europe, there is a tendency to treat artists with kid gloves. Let me share a little anecdote, if I may:
Back when I was running the Cannes Classical Awards in France, we gave Daniel Barenboim an award for his Beethoven cycle (which most agree was pretty terrific). It came out at the same time as Abbado's on DG, which was incredibly dull (in contrast to the much better live videos which are now being issued on CD too). This too was pretty much the consensus. In presenting Barenboim's award, I said to the room full of artsy folk how wonderful it was that he had revised the German Romantic tradition in Beethoven playing, "in contrast to a certain more widely publicized but audibly inferior cycle from that other Berlin orchestra on a certain yellow label." I thought I'd get a laugh, but people were aghast that I would dare criticize another artist. The expression on Barenboim's face was priceless, and one of my happiest memories of running the awards. Looking at the horrified crowd, I said "Relax people. It's OK. I do this for a living." Funny thing was, afterwards a bunch of people came up to me and said, in effect, "You know, you were right, Abbado is a bore, but no one dares to say so, and it was so unexpected." But what, then, does an award mean (I said) if not a recognition of excellence offered after a vetting process of some kind?
That said, I don't think Klemps' Ninth is incompetent, but it has some major problems and at this point in his career he did exhibit serious failings. We know, for example, that he slept through most of his recording of the Rhenish Symphony, woke up, and asked "how did it go," then authorized it for release. Everyone said it sucks, and it does--the major blot on an otherwise pretty fine Schumann cycle. Is that competent? And what's the harm in calling it for what it is? As for your last line above, again, I'm not sure that it really means anything beyond the obvious point that great performances have a certain naturalness and inevitability about them, period. Anyway, it's been very interesting discussing this with you, and thank you for sharing your views so eloquently!
Dave H
