Classical music thread welcoming your suggestions and why...


My best for Schumann 4 th

Incredible haunting surreal out of this world Furtwangler whose interpretation had never even be rivaled save by Klemperer mastery second, but really only second... Furtwangler here surpass all maestros and taught a lesson ...Perhaps the greatest musical recording among all his recordings, if not, i dont even know which one is over this one....

i stop listening anything after these two, which give their musical direction the power to reveal Schumann obsessiveness near madness and his way to control it with music healing power over tempest...

is it music? It is more a desesperate victorious act to keep control over oneself by music writing ... It is the way Furt, directed it... A glimpse of hope amidst terrors and in spite of it , as a boat lost on sea between sunrising and sun down and directed as such by these two maestros... Sometimes a whirlwind capture us desesperate and is replaced by a false calm and the sun illuminate the darkness to be replaced by fate returning in the turmoil again and again ...

The suggestive power of this music put Schumann beside Beethoven with his evocative power and Furtwangler and Klemperer knows it , it is not another musical piece, but the radiography of a soul...

Sometimes music is more than just music... Here it is the case...

it is not a leisure nor a mere pleasure more a deep vision, crisis, meditation, a trance ...

Any other maestro direct it only as a beautiful musical piece... It is not...It is a mystery dancing in some living soul and here for us to see not just listen ...

...

If the world spiritual had a meaning in music it is now...

 

Furtwangler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbyEiplksn0

 

Klemperer :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkU8ULGs4aE

 

128x128mahgister
Post removed 
Post removed 

His interpretation are not something always making unanimity...

We must be conscious of his mania in old age and limitations..

Then some of his playings will schok you at first, especially if you look for "tasteful" orthodox playings...

He let me discovered Liszt on whom i pass over young, listening Scriabin in ectasy , who i consider the greatest piano composer with Chopin...

But i was wrong...

Exactly as Scriabin is very difficult to interpret in the way intended , it is the same for Liszt... We know how Scriabin must be played because there is a Russian school tradition around his greatest disciple : Sofronitsky.. E.Ny. is the one who open my eyes to one of the greatest composer and not just a pianist... Liszt... ( Christus for example is a work of mastery that impacted greatly on Brucker soul)

If you for example are with reason an admirer of the beautidul playings of Arrau in the Olbermann Valley, one of the greatest work of Liszt, you MAY find the interpretation of E. Ny. in old age "disturbing" even "horrible" at first listening... I just answered to someone elsewhere , a pianist, claiming that this piece by E. Ny. is the worst piece ever played... I am not a pianist nor a musical specialist, but i listen with my heart... I listen music for the transformation i felt sometimes from it in my consciousness and experience of the world and soul...i dont just take it as a pleasurable leisure object of esthetic contemplation which must be played as all others pianists played it only "well"..

E. Ny. sometimes played overboard in a way bordering on madness, it is not madness, it is pure expression in a very intense way and in the two time musical dimensions : horizontal melodic and pulsating vertical he plays as Furtwangler directed,not Toscanini, with the birthing of the melody from the vertical dimension and not with a written melodical score put in the horizontal metronomical dimension ... As the main quality of his master Liszt , through Frederic Lamond, he refused to be a worker and a slave of the written score...He improvized in a way and immerse himself in this dimension of time where the soul does not belong to the world and where the melody is put to be born in the playing of "exécution" not from the written score metronomical orthodox suggestions...

We then listen to an event with him not to orthodox translation... He is volcanic sometimes way more than only clean and smooth... Our ears are not used at all to this playings bordering on thunders sometimes.. The only pianist who resemble him is Sofronitsky furor in Scriabin with the same sense of the vertical pulsating time from heights and depths , and as you know, in Scriabin, in his first works progressively horizontal melodic time become pure vertical time , AND vertical time BIRTH horizontal time especially in the last sonatas...Scriabin works explore the second vertical dimension of musical time without any algebraic recipe as Schoenberg will did but with a more subtle chords tool set ready to be use for any expressions between tonality and atonality, instead as Schoenberg of creating a new FORMULATION out of traditional tonality ...

In Liszt E.Ny. playings there is pure hubris expressiveness, and hues of colors and texture, pulsation, "the speakings and talkings" voices create the singing, and he does not use the written score as a jail , his freedom is over simple clarity and modesty, over horizontal metronomical time is complete and it is why he goes in depths of emotions never communicated before on a piano since Liszt who hypnotized crowds in trance with way more than just a perfect and just clean playing ... After all, the teachers of piano devoted to the young E. Ny. were all direct Liszt pupils ...

Music understanding and experience is more for me  about my readiness to go through some new territories than about my "tastes"  even if as everyone i had mine,  but it is certainly not  about "good taste" even if good taste exist and bad tastes too...

 

My very best to you...

So how do you regard the art of Celibidache?  Another artist famous for going his own way, for conceiving of music as statements, rather than a series of notes?

You already know anything i will say if i read your posts...

But thanks to ask...

All interprets or composers need our understanding... And each of us may discover any moment or may discover any interpreter in musical history according to the many threasholds we had already pass by ourselves in our own consciousness evolution and in our own musical knowledge and experience...

At the time i was a young i will never had understood Celibidache...

He use the two dimensions of musical time, the vertical pulsative one and the metronomical melodical horizontal one as Furtwangler did to reveal the intrinsic transcendance of musical time over physical time...

But their two ways differ a lot...

As Toscanini but in a different way than T. who subordinate completely , by imposition, in some way music music vertical dimension to metronomical time; C. without breaking the relation between the two dimensions of time in a way separate them bit to reveal in his own way the transcendance of musical time, but where Furt. use vertical pulsative dimension to let the melodical horizontal time to happen as if coming from the vertical as his true origin , C. like T. impose, but in a complete reverse way that T., he impose the melodic horizontal time to go back to his source in the vertical dimension as his true destination ...To do this he must slow the metronomical time dimension ( this explain why i spoke about the way C,. separate the two dimensions first because this slowing tempo IS THE SEPARATION i spoke about ) ...

Then for me, F. and C’ they are among the greatest maestros ever , because F. and C. complement one another in opposite way but without negating or erasing the transcendance of vertical pulsative time over or for the benefit of the metronomical time dimension, as Toscanini did...

Read me right i did not claim that T. is not a great maestro in his own way, he did supreme direction , he is one of the greatest maestro who ever live but he stay on a road which will never travelled so far again as he did by anyone... Because T. was using his will to bend music to his personnality , In this he was the ULTIMATE MESTRO , he did this instead of putting his personnality and will at the service of music in a more humble way as F. and C. did after him .. I hope i am clear...I try to describe these maestros here i dont claim superiority for one or the other...

With T. we are always in a musical experience that stay in time so astonishlingly dynamical and hypnotizing it is and it is mesmerizing; but with F. and C. we go more for eternity in a contemplative way...

If the works "sings" with F. it "speaks" poetically more than sings with C.

Now take that with a grain of salt... I try to describe in conepts my own experience with them... I had no serious knowledge in music and i am not a musician at all...

I describe in words my felt experience... I am interested by the concept of musical dual time experience , there is two directions of time in music , and in the physical world there is only one...

Music express something so deep that our science even only begins to grasp it as in the works of mathematician Alain Connes..

 

By the way these three maestros, C. F. and T. are the three most characteristical maestro if we analyse them with time dual dimensions as methodological concepts to understand them... This does not means that the other great maestros are less genius or less great... Not at all... But no other meastro illustrate better than C. with his slow direction , or as F. with his internal singing direction or as T. with the way he bent music to his will , no other so great tghey are go to the same extreme with always the exact same motivation consistently and always in the same way ...

All other maestro are more imprevisible or variable or flexible , and more complicate or less characteristical when we compare them together with the prism of the TIME dual dimensions and the way these dimensions interact internally and externally...All other maestro combine some aspect of these three directions in some mix unique recipe.... Ansermet is not Bernstein, and Giulini is not Klemperer... There is something of C. and T. in Klemperer more than of F. ...But here music is so complex that any formula will appear artificial... Human personnality is not an equation... But three great maestros because of their own personalities succeeded to isolate a particular road and way of being "musical" in relation with time and they succeeded in revealing to us ONE priviligied asopects in a way we can grasp it for its own sake... ...Thats is my point..

 

So how do you regard the art of Celibidache? Another artist famous for going his own way, for conceiving of music as statements, rather than a series of notes?