Discussion:
"What is astonishing is the fact that within one opera, tempo variations of nearly an hour are thinkable."
(too old to reply)
g***@gmail.com
2018-01-25 07:56:12 UTC
Permalink
http://www.haenchen.net/veroeffentlichungen/texte/?user_haenchendatabase_pi14%5Btype%5D=1&user_haenchendatabase_pi14%5Buid%5D=115&cHash=35963094a35411a5a6f1782df709b875
g***@gmail.com
2018-03-30 06:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@gmail.com
http://www.haenchen.net/veroeffentlichungen/texte/?user_haenchendatabase_pi14%5Btype%5D=1&user_haenchendatabase_pi14%5Buid%5D=115&cHash=35963094a35411a5a6f1782df709b875
Could this explain tempi slowing down over time?:

- Every tradition grows ever more venerable the more remote its origin, the more confused that origin is. The reverence due to it increases from generation to generation. The tradition finally becomes holy and inspires awe.

Nietzsche
Bert Coules
2018-03-30 08:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Wasn't it Toscanini who said that most traditions are some idiot's
half-remembered recollection of a bad performance?
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-30 12:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bert Coules
Wasn't it Toscanini who said that most traditions are some idiot's
half-remembered recollection of a bad performance?
The quote "tradition is yesterdays bad performance" has been ascribed to many including Callas
Mike Scott Rohan
2018-03-31 14:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Bert Coules
Wasn't it Toscanini who said that most traditions are some idiot's
half-remembered recollection of a bad performance?
The quote "tradition is yesterdays bad performance" has been ascribed to many including Callas
And it's been used to justify an awful lot of idiotic "reinterpretations". But I think Haenchen is broadly correct, in that we know Wagner hated the slow performances he encountered even in his lifetime. The tendency to Teutonic ponderousness has certainly always tended to creep in. But does that make it necessarily wrong? One of the strengths of music is its flexibility of interpretation, and the fact that very different performers can nevertheless produce similarly vivid and moving readings. Tempi alone are certainly no determination of this. A Goodall or Klemperer or Knappertsbusch could produce brilliant results from glacial tempi, whereas the whipping-along of a Boulez or Bohm can be much less involving, even superficial. And Haenchen's own excellent scholarship unfortunately doesn't make him any the more brilliant conductor; for me his recordings sag in the middle. So I think we have to judge everything by its own merit and our own tastes, and take that as a testimony to Wagner's true greatness, just as we do with the innumerable ways of interpreting Shakespeare.

Cheers,

Mike
Herman van der Woude
2018-03-31 18:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Scott Rohan
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Bert Coules
Wasn't it Toscanini who said that most traditions are some idiot's
half-remembered recollection of a bad performance?
The quote "tradition is yesterdays bad performance" has been ascribed to
many including Callas
And it's been used to justify an awful lot of idiotic "reinterpretations".
But I think Haenchen is broadly correct, in that we know Wagner hated the
slow performances he encountered even in his lifetime. The tendency to
Teutonic ponderousness has certainly always tended to creep in. But does that
make it necessarily wrong? One of the strengths of music is its flexibility
of interpretation, and the fact that very different performers can
nevertheless produce similarly vivid and moving readings. Tempi alone are
certainly no determination of this. A Goodall or Klemperer or Knappertsbusch
could produce brilliant results from glacial tempi, whereas the
whipping-along of a Boulez or Bohm can be much less involving, even
superficial. And Haenchen's own excellent scholarship unfortunately doesn't
make him any the more brilliant conductor; for me his recordings sag in the
middle. So I think we have to judge everything by its own merit and our own
tastes, and take that as a testimony to Wagner's true greatness, just as we
do with the innumerable ways of interpreting Shakespeare.
Cheers,
Mike
Hear, hear!
A conductor might be slow (Goodall) or fast (Boulez). Are both of them
wrong? No, of course not. What makes it a good performance or a
dissapointingf one, is tr\he feeling you have after leaving the
theatre. Or agter having listened to the recording of thar performance.
Was the conductor and his orchestra, all the singers involved, capable
of convincing me as a spectator of telling me a story! Nothing else
counts!
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Cheers,
Herman van der Woude

---
Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Herman van der Woude
2018-03-31 19:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman van der Woude
Hear, hear!
A conductor might be slow (Goodall) or fast (Boulez). Are both of them wrong?
No, of course not. What makes it a good performance or a dissapointingf one,
is tr\he feeling you have after leaving the theatre. Or agter having listened
to the recording of thar performance. Was the conductor and his orchestra,
all the singers involved, capable of convincing me as a spectator of telling
me a story! Nothing else counts!
It reads as if there were some disturbances "on the line", and I am
sorry for that. So, spelled again, it should read like:
Hear, hear!
A conductor might be slow (Goodall) or fast (Boulez). Are both of them
wrong? No, of course not. What makes it a good performance or a
dissapointing one, is the feeling you have after leaving the theatre.
Or after having listened to the recording of that performance. Were the
conductor and his orchestra, were all the singers involved, capable of
convincing me as a spectator (listener) of telling me a story! Nothing
else counts!
Sorry about any errors in the text!
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Cheers,
Herman van der Woude
Loading...