[ Post a Response | The MusicWeb Message Board ]
Posted by Alex Russell Baron Bliss stated: "Alex: When you say that Bernstein could not conduct Mozart many critics and music lovers will disagree with you. My particular favourite of recording of all Mozart symphonies are the critically acclaimed and award winning accounts of the symphonies Nos. 40 & 41 with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on Deutsche Grammophon 'Masters' series 445 548-2. Several of his recordings of Haydn symphonies are highly acclaimed too." Yes: many critics and music lovers may very well disagree with me but I would argue Mozart would not. If you listen to Bernstein in Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41 'Jupiter' you will see that he simply does not critically follow what is written in these scores: Bernstein does not follow Mozart's tempo markings. In the 'Jupiter' Bernstein does not understand the jagged cross rhythms and dissonances in the first movement or the contrapuntal structure of the final. In both 40 and 41 Bernstein submerges and smudges the woodwind and makes Mozart sound like muzac by fetishizing and emphasising the strings whilst toning down the woodwind and brass. Why does Bernstein coat the VPO violin sound with a saccharine Stokowski or sweet Mantovani like slick glossy sheen? Why is Bernstein's 'Mozart' so effete, so cosy, so nice, so safe, so upholstered: so 'easy listening'? In Bernstein’s 'Jupiter' (not Mozart's) all the contrapuntal strands are smudged. Bernstein's 'Mozart' has nothing to do with Mozart and everything to do with 'Bernstein': slick, smaltz, smooth, streamlined devoid of drama, danger, darkness and dissonance. Why does Bernstein ignore Mozart's unambiguous tempo marking for K550 (1st and 4th movements) Molto allegro (very fast), also, very fast, - as observed by Harnoncourt, Bruggen, and surprisingly, Furtwangler? Why does Bernstein ruin Mozart's request and turn the Molto allegro into a comfortable (Gemutlich) andante? I ask Bliss as well as critics and so-called music lovers alike to listen to Otto Klemperer's performances of Mozart's 41 'Jupiter' Symphony with the Guerzenich Orchestra, (Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956) or with the Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962); the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): here woodwind and brass are properly projected and not toned down and homogenised. Listening to these paradigms performances will make you all realise just where Bernstein goes wrong and exactly why Bernstein simply cannot conduct Mozart: there is a great divergence between what Mozart actually asks for and what Bernstein conducts and serves up. Bernstein dumbs-down Mozart (and Haydn and Beethoven) by smoothing out the orchestral textures thus silencing all the dark dissonances and dramatic dynamism inherent in these radical and revolutionary scores. Benjamin Britten could conduct Mozart!!! Bernstein could not!!! What does Bliss mean by 'critically acclaimed' - is he referring here to the lamentable and appallingly written Penguin Record Guide – the PR Bible of the Classical Record Industry? Where they award a naff Rosette as a sign of stature and a seal of approval? I would argue that the Penguin Record Guide is more of an advertising manual than a critical reference. Why does Bliss give such authority and kudos to critics or critical acclaim? Ignorance is certainly Bliss here: as we well know: many critics are uncritical and are some are merely subservient PR spokespersons for the music industry to push up flagging classical sales. Popularist platitudes like 'generally acclaimed' are merely meaningless sales spiel in the context of selling classical music which does not sell like it used to. Why does Bliss or anyone else need a conductor to be "generally acclaimed" as a sign of approval or value? Why are people today totally incapable of applying their own autonomous diacritical faculties, if indeed they possess any? Why do people have to be persuaded or told what to like through sales spiel like: "critically acclaimed"? Many of our contemporary conservative critics do not like Klemperer's or Harnoncourt's Mozart because they see it as far too strident and strange even ‘weird’ (yet it is very often strident, strange and weird music) and prefer Bernstein and Beecham’s civilised and homogenised ‘easy listening’ Mozart (‘Muzart’) as David Hurwitz confesses: Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Franz Brüggen/Orchestra of the 18th Century: Philips 434149-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Nikolaus Harnoncourt and the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra: Teldec: 4509-97490-2. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Philharmonia Orchestra: EMI Angel: 7 47852 2. Mozart: 41 "Jupiter": Otto Klemperer and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra (1968): Testament: SBT8 1365. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Guerzenich Orchestra, Pavilion des Sports, Montreux Festival, 9th September 1956. Mozart: Symphonies 40 & 41 "Jupiter": The Philadelphia Orchestra (Academy of Music, Philadelphia, 3rd November 1962. These paradigm performances testify to the fact that Bernstein cannot conduct Mozart.
on November 13, 2005, 7:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Greatest Conductor"
81.77.247.160
Addendum:
"Nikolaus Harnoncourt's Mozart is controversial. Some listeners find it thrillingly unconventional--others find it just plain strange. He recorded all of these works once before, with the Concertgebouw Orchestra, and those version really were weird. Here, he seems to have moderated his impulses to take fast movements very, very fast, and slow ones very, very slow, and the result, while certainly not conventional, is an interesting alternative to the usual routine. " - David Hurwitz
If Bliss wants to hear Mozart's Mozart 40 & 41 and not Bernstein’s Bernstein 40 & 41 – I strongly suggest that he listen to:
Message Thread | Skip to this response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for using the MusicWeb Message Board.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb