However, my point in relation to this specific debate is that just because "I" (insert name of critic/commentator as you wish) dislike a particular artist or one of their performances because it does not conform to my understanding of the work in question it is quite wrong to assume that this "poor" version is based on superficial ill-considered choices. You would have to be a spectacularly foolish - especially with a composer as revered and complex as Bruckner - to "bash out" a performance on the fly. The accusation often levelled at Rattle is that he over-thinks/micro-manages performances - not a characterisitic of a hastily-conceived interpretation.
Likewise with musicologists who produce new editions of major works; there is so much accessibility to manuscripts/associated documentation now that to produce something wholly speculative would be foolish in the extreme. My belief is that the vast majority of such musicologists believe passionately in their chosen subject /specialist field and have devoted hours if not years of work to produce versions that they believe enhances the reputation of the composer/work they are studying.
One would like to think that what Nick Barnard writes in relation to performers' responsibilities towards the music they play and record can be taken as a rule but I tend to believe there may be many exceptions to it. I know of many criticisms that have been made about actors "Walking through" their parts (Indeed it was said that George Sanders often had his lines posted up at strategic points around the film set so that he could read them during the filming of scenes because he hadn't bothered to study his part) and I have no reason to believe that every musician, to a man, is invariably more conscientious than such actors whose films reach a much larger audience than many cd performances do.
There are some musicians who are incredibly quick "Learners." It has been reported that Dmitri Sgouros sight-read through the Brahms F minor Piano Sonata twice and declared that he had now memorised it and that he was ready to perform it in public.
Another prodigious sight-reader was John Ogdon and it's said that when he arrived at a recording session it was often suspected that he was sight-reading the score.
I had it from a very reliable source (a BBC conductor and producer) that an unpleasant incident occurred between Artur Rubinstein and Fritz Reiner at the recording-sessions of a concerto when Rubinstein held up the session in order to practice sections in his part which he hadn't sufficiently prepared beforehand. Reiner-quite rightly really-said to Rubinstein words to the effect that "If you think the rest of us are going to sit around waiting while you learn your part, you're mistaken." Frosty atmosphere ensued.
Back in the 1960s the first time I heard Gershwin's Second Rhapsody was in a radio broadcast in which the soloist was Eric Harrison. When I was a student in London I prepared the Rhapsody for performances at College with the student orchestra and had occasion to speak to Harrison about it. Although he hadn't played it for several years he sat down and sight-read it right through for me. He also told me that he'd turned up to the rehearsal for the broadcast believing that he'd been booked to play the Rhapsody in Blue and was surprised to find a copy of the Second Rhapsody -which he didnt know- on the music stand but managed to learn it in time for the concert which took place two days later.
There is no question that performers of the stature of Sgouros, Ogdon, Harrison and Rubinstein could probably absorb more from a score at a glance than most mere mortals can after weeks and months of study. However the notion that all their performances were the result of weeks, months, years of study probably doesn't hold up in fact.
The fairly recent phenomenon of the "Box set performer" where a single artist is contracted to perform every single piece - great, good, so-so and hastily-written potboiler - that a composer wrote seems to preclude detailed study of every single piece that he or she wrote.
Taking note of the fact that this thread concerns one of Bruckner's symphonies the purchaser of the cds of major works in the repertoire has every right to expect that the artists involved in recording them haven't done so in any spirit of flippancy. Nevertheless there are gazillions of recordings out there of all sorts of repertoire and I cannot believe it's all been done in the spirit of respect and reverence that Nick Barnard seems to be suggesting. I can't accept that a review on the MWI pages is always a guarantee of quality either. I know of a reviewed recording of some seldom-played piano music where the artist concerned appears to have taken little notice of anything in the scores other than the position of the notes on the staves . I would say that this particular performer walked-through his task by relying on his highly-developed digital facility to achieve it.
It has been said that recollections may vary and so too may personal experiences. One person's personal experience does not necessarily mean that it invariably reflect the wider picture.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb