Richard Strauss Recordings

I said the same thing about Strauss, he expressed himself through esthetics over truth ethic, but you said it way more precisely and way better than i did...Thanks...

Save i dont judge him as harsh as you only because he stay behind the revolution coming in music... This revolution of atonal music , was more a temporary exile from past esthetics endeavour and a stay in the desert waiting for some truth and looking for it over the past esthetics... But paradoxically Schoenberg reject all past esthethics looking for truth with a new esthetic...I prefer Scriabin even over Berg who enter himself consciously in the abyss between tonality and atonality and stay conscious on their border...This is the reason why he is so revered in Russia way less so in the rest of the world... For me Stravinski is like a super-Strauss...Someone i can appreciated and put over every modern composer by his genius but Stravinski never touch this part of my soul and heart looking for truth... As Strauss did sometimes  as you yourself put it in your post...Scriabin is not if we listen all his journey from saturated romanticism to extra terrestrial or deep spiritual expressions a reactionary... He moved us and at the same time  created new worlds with minimal means..

But from this passing in the desert of atonality , musicians discovered freedom at the end, and truth became not a new dogma or a past catechism but the discoveries of all earth musical traditions,oriental and the others and jazz as a true valued musical forms on their own among other values... Philip Glass is an example of this... They are many others like Arvo Paart... Or Robert Simson...

Even if he can be perceived as a reactionary , Ernest Ansermet taught something peculiar about tonality history and very central : truth must be put over esthetics... For sure the future was not to be in the Ansermet deep diktat , the future was freedom at last from all captivity, even from the truth jail...

History of music is in a way an history of human consciousness but not in a linear historical way as Ansermet depicted it in his mammoth book confusing european music with all music...

Thanks very much for this interesting post....

Lack of appreciaton is not what I get from reading these responses. However most of the reservations folks seem to have prevent them from truly loving his music. Strauss’ musicianship is always recognized and his manner of ’decorating’ time is one of extreme sonic beauty. But somehow many people seem to ’feel’ there’s something missing. I believe it was Otto Klemperer who said something about him that sums up the dilemma: Strauss was a genius, but he just didn’t care (not an exact quote, but words to that effect). I think that Klemperer, who championed his early operas, felt betrayed. As a young man Strauss was one of the pioneers in the expressionist movement, with the opera’s Salomé and Elektra. Both are very graphic portrayals of violent subject matters and especially Elektra was at the brink of tonal music. That line was consequently crossed by Schoenberg et al, but it seems Strauss had copped out. The next opera was Rosenkavalier and for all its sonic beauty it just feels complacent and even somewhat insincere to me. I often get that same feeling from his orchestral music, no matter how beautifully it sounds. These pieces were all written after Strauss’ decision to stay on the ’safe side’. You wonder if he ever had any regrets about making that choice and live to see Schoenberg, Berg and Webern get all the post war critical acclaim for changing the course of music.

There are a few Strauss pieces that seem to escape his ’escapism’, at least for me. Don Quixote has a deep ambiguity that is very moving and the Four Last Songs have a devastating emotional impact, despite the sentimental sonic atmosphere of the piece. These two I truly ’love’, the rest is ’appreciated’.

 

I forgot to thank the OP also  for this deep and interesting thread...

My very best...

Going in the desert and return with some new truth sounds very biblical, doesn’t it? Likewise in music such new ’truth’ can easily turn into new dogma and serialism certainly was a very strict and even dogmatic system. It became a sort of smokescreen for a whole generation of mediocre composers to hide behind. As long as you rotated your notes with the required serial pedigree you were accepted by academia as a worthy disciple, no matter how boring or ugly your music would sound. Anyone not committing to these lazy dogma’s was not taken seriously and ’cancelled’ as we would probably call it today. Thankfully strictly serial composers are mostly forgotten, while those who resisted the peer pressure and stubbornly developped their own musical language (while even adopting serial devices) are now the ones acknowledged as the true ’originals’.

Adorno put Schoenberg and Stravinsky against each other in an essay on modern music. In his dogmatic view Schoenberg represented the absolute musical truth, while Stravinsky was accused of going commercial by adopting neo classicism. After the powerful ’earthliness’ of Rite of Spring, etc. this stylistic change was felt as a betrayal. In his mind Stravinsky copped out and adopted the ’wrong’ conciousness. I’m not sure if Adorno ever wasted any words on Strauss, but if he had he would probably have condemned him for not having a conscience at all.

There are  ONLY VERY FEW Strauss recordings by Celibidache, notably with the Munich Philharmonic and Radio Stuttgart. They are well,worth searching for. Especially Munich has an obvious connectivity.

Adorno so intelligent it was, as Ansermet was at the opposite end,  a very learned and intelligent man and even if i do not partake his catechism about tonality, a way more deeper thinker than Adorno ( i read his mammoth book) They have their clear agendas each one of them ...

And reality had not  wait for our agendas... And as i said FREEDOM come right at the same moment through Jazz first or composers as different as Charles Ives or Scriabin for example  who cannot be put against Schoenberg as mere  neo-classicism reaction .. Then came into the fore right after Jazz , all worlds music "classical" traditions...As in iranian/persian music and Indian classical music among all others.. The first mentor and friend of Philip Glass creating minimalism with other composers , studied american Indian drumming for example...

Adorno was very european centric , and did not understand what is coming in his times , which was FREEDOM , but not in dogmatic atonal dogma AGAINST tonality , ( after all any two  foes ressemble each other  way more than suggested by their apparent opposition, Atonality is only the reverse of tonality, two faces of the same coin)...  Adorno did not understood Jazz as music phenomenon and his analysis is not even wrong but being socially focused beside the musical essential meaningful emerging point... « Adorno’s essay “On Jazz” of 1936 sees jazz as a commodity in the culture industry and as merely a perverted form of symbolic revolt against social injustice.»

And my Biblical metaphor about exile in the desert is spot on, i take it inspired by Ansermet who despise Schoenberg atonality...But unlike Ansermet catechism it was not a return to tonality dogma which came after the war but because of new technologies the world "classical" musics from all world corners... The occidental domination centered in European christian values were already contested by musical traditions which appear as revelations for many of us...Personnally i admired mid eastern music and Iranian and Indian classicals especially... But even didgeridoo australian music can taught us something...

Sound is music by the power of the human brain/body/consciousness... But music in the larger possible meaning of the world , out of humanity, is at the core of mathemathics and then of the cosmos...Music is more than human leisure in esthetic or dogmatic truth... Music is medecine and cosmology and number theory...The greatest thinker in music right now is the creator of non commutative geometry : Alain Connes ...This is one of the deepest lecture in Science i ever heard.., it must be listened to many times.. But it is stunning..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52ZAPrRbqE&t=487s

Going in the desert and return with some new truth sounds very biblical, doesn’t it? Likewise in music such new ’truth’ can easily turn into new dogma and serialism certainly was a very strict and even dogmatic system. It became a sort of smokescreen for a whole generation of mediocre composers to hide behind. As long as you rotated your notes with the required serial pedigree you were accepted by academia as a worthy disciple, no matter how boring or ugly your music would sound. Anyone not committing to these lazy dogma’s was not taken seriously and ’cancelled’ as we would probably call it today. Thankfully strictly serial composers are mostly forgotten, while those who resisted the peer pressure and stubbornly developped their own musical language (while even adopting serial devices) are now the ones acknowledged as the true ’originals’.

Adorno put Schoenberg and Stravinsky against each other in an essay on modern music. In his dogmatic view Schoenberg represented the absolute musical truth, while Stravinsky was accused of going commercial by adopting neo classicism. After the powerful ’earthliness’ of Rite of Spring, etc. this stylistic change was felt as a betrayal. In his mind Stravinsky copped out and adopted the ’wrong’ conciousness. I’m not sure if Adorno ever wasted any words on Strauss, but if he had he would probably have condemned him for not having a conscience at all.