Classical music thread welcoming your suggestions and why...

I had read your previous posts on Celi but I was wondering if you could fit into the context of the present discussion.  I do like your analogy of Celi being sort of of the racemic isomer, to use a biochemical term, of Toscanini ; in two dimensions they are similar, but since music is more than two dimensional, they arrive at completely different results.

  Do you have any thoughts on one of our most prominent’ Furtwangler-wanna-be’ Daniel Barenboim?

Pardon the thread drift, but say what you will about pianist Maurizio Pollini possessing more finger speed than soul, more often than not he’s my go-to guy when I want to hear some Chopin. Out and out exhilarating. I might have mentioned it in another thread, way back when, but I saw him perform live, once upon a time in L.A. Hair flying, reach-out-and-mow-down-the-stars virtuosity.

I love Pollini.  I was asked recently who my favorite pianist was and after a lot of thought, and all the disclaimers that I couldn’t pick just one, etc, I settled on him.

The Gramophone did one of their pieces on their favorite recordings of a given work on the Chopin Etudes and I was apoplectic when they dismissed M.P. His recording  is supremely, eye poppingly virtuosic yet brings out Chopin’s harmonies, especially for the left hand, like no one else.

Music is not two dimensional at all for sure...

But musical time is two dimensional... vertical pulsative dimension and metronomical horizontal dimension... Physical time had only one direction : from past to future...

In musical time you may create a metronomical dimension which go from beginning to end.. And stay and live there... But there is a direction from pulsative origin in the vertical dimension toward the horizontal physically measurable dimension as a destination and the reverse two ...The road between horizontal and vertical is two-way...

jazz was invented by poor people looking not for a purely physical horizontal time ALREADY KNOWN dimension but looking for a vertical new pulsative dimension which must be FELT as an origin and a new road now toward a new destination in the horizontal time dimension ...

Celibidache imposed as Toscannini a metronomical time but unlike Toscanni which goal was TOTAL METRONOMICAL CONTROL with his will power, Celibidache looked for a the vertical origin of musical time in the pulsative dimension, but to do so he mustIMPOSED a slow metronomical time over his musician playing by force as Toscanni.. But his goal unlike Toscanini was never a complete mastering and domination of the orchestra for the sake of it, but to look for the spiritual origin of music in SILENCE in the pulsative verticas dimension as source...He is a dictator as Toscanini... But not with the same musical agenda...

Furtwangler was not like these two a dictator, but someone taking the musicians with him to listen the music in the act of playing it, to manifest the source of vertical time in the playing itself manifested in the horizontal measurable dimension of time...The measurable time dimension is the destination of F. but for C. it ishis point of departure toward the vertical silent origin in the vertical pulsative dimension the non measurable one...

Then Furtwangler and Celibidache are "racemic isomer" in a different way the two of them...Toscanini is not... This is why nobody will never surpass Toscanini in his his road with his bending of time dimension reduced to one direction only, under his iron will... ...

I had read your previous posts on Celi but I was wondering if you could fit into the context of the present discussion.  I do like your analogy of Celi being sort of of the racemic isomer, to use a biochemical term, of Toscanini ; in two dimensions they are similar, but since music is more than two dimensional, they arrive at completely different results.

i had a philosophical mind, but your knowledge of music is more large or deep than mine on many aspects, because more professional too if i analyse your past posts... i dont master any musical instrument myself as you... i spoke about my intuition... and my feeling thats all...

i cannot for example characterise really Barenboim, because i dont know him much about being a conductor ... i listen almost nothing from him  and a long time ago when i was less experienced than i am now... Then i am not competent to describe his maestro work...

I can speak of Klemperer or Celibidache or Furtwangler ONLY because i enter in ectasy with them in some works... i can understand ONLY those i experienced in love ...But if i did not discover the right work of them , i cannot speak of them...

But  there is exception, paradoxically, i dont like Toscanini and never will , but amazingly, i was so fascinated by him and will always be, i begun to understand why he is so great and why he will never be surpassed in his way... And doing so i begun to understand why my two heroes Celibidache et Furtwangler were also giants...Without Toscanini i would have never clearly understood them ...

For example Giulini in the 9th of Bruckner or Celi. or Bernstein in Mahler... etc i love and know them because i love them... Barenboim i cannot speak about him...

Do you have any thoughts on one of our most prominent’ Furtwangler-wanna-be’ Daniel Barenboim?