Enjoyed your commentary. My father and I had season tickets to the San Francisco Symphony for years. Was privileged to watch Monteux conduct many times. The San Francisco Symphony orchestra was on of the best at that time.
My first exposure to Monteux was a BBC 2-disc live set of Monteux conducting Regine Crespin in Berlioz's La Damnation de Faust. I enjoyed it a great deal. It was only in print for about 4 minutes, though.
I first heard Monteux in his 1961 recording of Franck's Symphony, which is also the first time I heard that great piece. I was 6, and remember exactly where I was. It transfixed me and when I had to turn the record over, I ran to the turntable to hear the magnificent rest of the symphony.
One of my favorite teen years memories was a RCA sampler disc - Showcase in Sound 1956 on which a number of conductors make short comments on their recent recordings: Beecham on Boheme; Reiner on Beethoven 7; Munch on Beethoven 6, etc. It cost $1.98. Especially charming was Monteux remembering Massenet's Manon. He has always been one of my favorite conductors. I still have the disc and listen to it now and then.
I had the pleasure of seeing Monteux conduct in person, and attending an informal question/answer session with him. That would have been some time toward the end of '57 or the first half of '58. He was guest conductor of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony Orchestra. I thought he was absolutely delightful. At the beginning of the question/answer session, he made it clear that he would not entertain any questions about his 1913 performance of the Rite of Spring. When asked about the refusal of many orchestras to hire African American musicians (which was an issue at that time), it was clear that he disliked any form of racial discrimination. I especially recall him saying, "I am colored too.... pink!"
Sadly, Pierre Monteux passed away before he could conduct at the first Montreaux Jazz Festival. Although probably not provoking a riot as had happened at the 1913 Paris premiere, his reading of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring might still have wowed them, as that was Charlie Parker's favorite piece of music.
Monteux's mono 1941 La Valse with the San Francisco Symphony is amazing. Monteux puts so much relentless drive, momentum, and apocalyptic doom into the piece without losing the glamour, sumptuousness, and grace of Ravel's waltz. His faster than usual tempo is bracing. The SFSO plays like demons and the very loud tam tam crashes are thrilling. This is a smokin La Valse that everyone should experience. Reply
I wholeheartedly agree with you about "Period Performances." That said. The only PM I've heard is Weber's Jubel Overture (Heil Dir Im Siegerkranz aka God Save The King aka My Country Tis of Thee) and loved it. But he does a throw in kitchen sink finale show in the last few bars with the timpani blasting tonic/dominant that I know Weber didn't write.
I totally agree with you Dave regarding these "period" instrument people. My violin/viola teacher at college was a "grand pupil" of Ysaye. She would frown upon my playing unnecessary open strings, I was always taught to use the lower strings rather than open strings. To my ears the reason is obvious, open strings sound horrible and render vibrato impossible (more evidence of the use of vibrato in previous years), especially when played at a lower pitch. Speaking personally, of course, I find listening to any music from Haydn onwards played using ubiquitous open strings and with no vibrato just horrible and the lower pitch renders the sound so sour, yuck!
Why, I ask myself, if the HIP crowd is so intent on studying ancient recordings for clues to performance practice in 19th century music, do they not adopt the very obvious and almost ubiquitous portamento practice of string playing then prevalent? Even in great orchestras like the NYP in the 20s. Could it be that it doesn't fit the narrative of an antiseptic, at times emotionally attenuated severity of style they foster? A real head scratcher.
Dear Mr Hurwitz, thanks for your untiring work that accompanied me since the pandemic began. I'm pretty sure you will disagree with me, but I have to make a point when it comes to your position on period instruments in 19th and 20th century repertoire. It's a sure thing that Monteux attended the premiere of the Franck symphony and Toscanini played the premiere of Otello. But to take the recordings of both works by these conducters as witness for how the works sounded in the times of their composers doesn't convince me. Both conductors were such characterful musical personalities that I'm sure they had at the end of their careers a quite personal approach to the works after a long time of developing as musicians in their century. So I think Otello under Toscanini sounded quite different then 1887. And that's what fascinating me at experiments like van Immerssel's Anima Eterna for example. His Ravel CD was quite an experience for me. And it made a big difference! Modern piano or Erard makes a big difference. The woodwinds in Bolero blend in a totally different way then in modern orchestra. If Ravel would have preferred a Steinway nowadays and if some of the structures of the composition could be heard more satisfyingly on a modern instrument is for me a totally different question. I'm fascinated by the possibility of listening to the music in a way the composer could have heard it and what's to learn from that. Thanks for reading this long comment. All the best for you. Greetings from Germany.
I hear your point, but you misunderstand mine. I have no argument that Monteux or Toscanini evolved their own personal interpretations, but that is a generic observation. All artists do that. We are talking about the fundamental quality of sound of modern ensembles being perfectly legitimate, if not actually preferable, to that of earlier ensembles, and that is beyond question because that is what they did. The necessary corollary to this fact is that such differences as do exist (and we know there were some) simply do not matter, and therefore do not serve to legitimize "historically informed" performances in any special way, nor are they in any way inherently superior to modern performances. In short, a great performance is a great performance, and it will always be up to the performers to create one, not to the make or model of their instruments, or to tiny adjustments to their sound or modification of the rules dictating how they are played. I also believe, in your description above, that you grossly exaggerate the significance of the timbral differences you describe--something I see all the time. For example, the woodwinds in "Bolero" do not "blend in an entirely different way." That is a nonsensical statement, to be honest. They may sound a bit different, but you have no way of knowing that what you are hearing is "right" or "better," especially when the performers have a vested interest in exaggerating such differences in order to "prove" the "authenticity" of their approach. It is merely a slightly different sound than what you are used to. In and of itself, it has no value at all. I hear similar differences from one performance to the next anyway, depending on the ensemble, the hall, or the conductor.
It's always so satisfying when you revisit this whole "authenticity" question, Dave, though I never fail to leave a video like this without shaking my head, amazed and dismayed that in the face of obvious AUDIBLE evidence like Monteux's recordings (or Walter's or Klemperer's.), there persists this popular HIP dogma about a different and "right" way to play this 19th century music. Baffles me to see the praise heaped on perverse ventures like Roth's Eroica or other "authentic" readings that manage to get the music so dead-wrong. What are people actually HEARING? Beats me. Anyhow, thanks for rehearsing the arguments--even if it seems the HIP crowd doesn't feel the need to engage them.
The very notion that an orchestra is obligated to play period instruments matching the composer s time line of the actual composition is like entering a modern car race with a Model T Ford .The progression from the Old style of orchestral playing to our modern day New and improved style or orchestral playing should be welcomed, not frowned on.
I agree 100% with the logic and substantially with the idea that the differences in playing style between now and 120 years ago are not material to the musical result. However I do see exceptions in two main areas, and I wonder if these are more important for singers and instrumentalists than orchestras. The first is the impact of having to create a bigger and bigger sound to fill bigger halls. The reason this is more relevant to singers and instrumentalists than orchestras is that with the latter you can just add more players. Wagner or Verdi singers with bigger voices tend to be less agile/less "bel canto", and it is harder to play fast and fleet on big modern Steinways, built to fill big modern halls, than on early 20th century Bechsteins or Erards (Moriz Rosenthal famously said he couldn't achieve his pianistic effects on a modern Steinway). So I find a lot of unreconstructed modern performances slow and heavy. The second is the 'literalist revolution' that took place from the 1930s to 1950s. Examples: the taboo around portamento (also an expressive device like vibrato). The 'respect the note values' movement which decided that all quavers had to be more or less the same length. The reluctance to add variations or ornaments to repeats. Again I think there was always less scope for this kind of freedom in orchestral music, so I hear greater differences in these respects between performance practice now and in historical recordings in vocal/instrumental music than in orchestral music. Importantly, I don't think we have to look to period instrument performers to approaches that successfully bridge that gap. There is no real difference in kind in performance practice between, say, Nelson Freire, and 'Golden-age' pianists, or between Maria Callas and golden-age singers. And if you want lovely, fleet, graceful, non-shouty Brahms, Andras Schiff does that beautifully in his recent recording of the concertos, albeit with a slimmed-down orchestra and an old Bösendorfer.
I think the "bigger hall" argument is exaggerated. There have always been performances with large forces--think the Handel festivals of the 18th century, for example. But more to the point, if what we are talking about is "authenticity," then there is no question about the kind of singers and voices composers such as Wagner and Verdi required, and that is a stylistic feature of their music, not a function of the size of the room. As for Rosenthal's comment, I never pay attention to artists who complain about what they can't do and blame the instrument. Rosenthal was a great artist, but what he couldn't do someone else no doubt could.
Many singers a century ago or so had huge voices who were in no way less agile or less bel Canto than their smaller voiced colleagues and successors. Flagstad, Frida Leider, Eva Turner. Friederich Schorr, Rosa Ponselle all had tremendous voices yet had great agility and could turn corners quickly as needed to fulfill the demands of the music. It was a byword in London in the 20s that if you wanted to hear bel canto singing at Covent Garden you went to the German performances. And Leider sang and recorded Gluck and Verdi. The French tenor Leon Escalais had a voice which would shake the rafters yet he sported a magnificent trill and great agility as his records prove. It's not the instrument but the training and finesse in its use.
@@bbailey7818 So has singing technique changed in a significant way and why? Or were the singers you mention exceptions/geniuses rather than representative of their time?
I mean, point taken, my “big halls” idea is full of holes (one more hole being the rise of mass recordings in the 1950s). I stand by my second point - a range of expressive techniques (agogics, portamento, ornamentation/variation) fell into disfavour some time around the 1930s and one thing you hear period instrument people trying to do in a more or less maladroit way (Bezuidenhout Beethoven piano concertos, anyone?) is resurrect them under the mantle of scholarly respectability
I have two contrasting observations/questions to add to the vibrato thread: 1. In most period practice performances I hear of choral works using soloists and operas, the singer (soloists) almost always (perhaps less so some of the male altos and Emma Kirkby) use vibrato significantly. Anywhere in the world where the violin is played traditionally, it has been praised for it's ability to imitate the human voice, so.......why would there be a doctrine where the singers use vibrato but the violins do not? (some great baroque violinists like Manze or Biondi do often flourish their notes with vibrato). 2. In contrast though, I have heard you mention Dave how composers like Haydn, Boccherini, and Gluck, often marked in their scores where vibrato is to be used, so doesn't that sort of imply that in the other sections it is used much less? (I have had these questions on my mind for a while now). Going now to check out the Monteux 10 best, take care!
1. Singers have no choice. All human voices have a natural level of vibrato, which training can sometimes modify but only eliminate for brief periods as a special effect. This has been known (and discussed) for many centuries. 2. Your second question answers your first. Vibrato is not one thing. There is vibrato to create a warm, singing tone, and vibrato as a special effect. Period instrument folks emphasize "vibrato as an ornament," but ignore the more usual, timbral variety even though period sources mention it and support its use. It's also worth noting that most vibrato is inaudible as such--it only strikes the ear as pleasant tone, but you don't hear a actual oscillation in pitch. Only very wide or very slow vibrato is detectable at all for most listeners.
Thank you Dave for another food-thought video! For me, the bottom line is the period people's will to expand their repertoire beyond the boundaries of the baroque era. The Hip mouvement was perfect in the rediscovery of that music, which used actually different instruments from those used from the 19th Century onward (eg dying-cow viola da gamba, viola da braccio, lute, harpsichord, etc.). Hence the creation of a sound totally artificial for classic, romantic and tardoromantic music, that never existed in the reality of orchestra's practice from the 19th century onward. And this is just for the sake of playing not only Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and so on, but to perform even tardoromantic repertoire and sound different for the sake of being different (frankly, how much the orchestra that premiered Daphnis and Cloe in 1912 could be different from today's orchestras?) and, even more, for the sheer inability to adapt their playing's style from one composer to another. So, the same approach that works perfectly with the baroque music, becomes totally nonsense with Mahler (the adagio of his fourth Symphony played by Xavier Roth in his last record is simply unlistenable, sounds like a bad joke; just to mention one of ten thousand possibile exemples), Bruckner, Ravel, etc. Ultimately, the whole thing is a result of the hip's conductors ego that, with very few exceptions, are only able to use the same formula for all the repertoire, no matter if this is a 18th century's concerto grosso or a huge fin de siecle's Symphony for modern orchestra. It's a real sad situation, expecially for the music, that is always more often presented in the worst possible way.
At this point, most sentient beings can agree that the HIP movement has really no idea what it's doing in music after the baroque period. Just listen to Kent Nagano's Rheingold or Norrington's anything. Even now, most HIP is the most hardcore Modernist garbage you'll ever hear. There are winds of change but they are still the minority. So I have to ask why don't more of my conductor colleagues actually listen to the great masters like Monteux or Toscanini or Walter? Why not dig deeper and listen to Abendroth or Max Fiedler or Oskar Fried? Why do so many dismiss Mengelberg or Furtwängler or Stokowski? After all, they were also born around the same time as Monteux! The dogma of the postwar period poisoned their legacies when in fact, they were simply a reflection of the many facets of the romantic style, all equally legitimate regardless of personal taste. I just hope that these HIPsters finally realize that for music after 1800, the instruments matter less than how we actually play stylistically. For those interested in Late Romantic style, check out all the piano rolls of composers like Mahler, Debussy, Grieg, or Percy Grainger etc.! Fascinating stuff!!
I often thought that many of the historical justified performances, with all the wild guessing that comes along with it, was the result of a certain narcissism and a quest for commercial success. And people, who don't know much about classical music and can't judge performances very well, can be fooled a lot. They often believe everything they are told. There is critical thinking and there is critical listening, both not very popular nowadays.
Points well made. The second point- 'the quest for commercial success'- is a key motivator for 'innovation' or trends (e.g., the 'period music' or the 'authenticity' movement in classical music) in many academic disciplines and artistic domains. Ego and narcissism being what they are, academics and artists (and to be fair, entrepreneurs and politicians) are motivated to try to find a way to differentiate themselves from the pack, whether or not it represents accuracy or benefits others. A strong viewpoint, consistently sold, can bring fame as well as money, regardless of its accuracy or value. Otherwise, one must rely upon sheer excellence or luck to advance in a given field, and often that is not as reliable as creating an attention-getting niche, whether or not it really serves the issue or the audience.
As a long-time video watcher and Classics Today Insider, I find your HIP-critical lectures the least charming feature of your talks. In this case, I expected a positive discussion of Pierre Monteux as a conductor across the decades. I feel you used this video as a way to express (again) your already well-known and regularly repeated views on the topic. I have tried to be measured in the hope that you will read this comment. I don’t expect you to mute your criticism based on the comments of someone who has not been a life-long classical music listener. I do hope you get my point.
Sure I get your point. Read the comments of those who love my discussions of this topic. I think it matters. I can't please everyone all the time, and I'm sorry you don't see the "charm." But I'm not sorry enough to stop talking about this issue.
Enjoyed your commentary. My father and I had season tickets to the San Francisco Symphony for years. Was privileged to watch Monteux conduct many times. The San Francisco Symphony orchestra was on of the best at that time.
My first exposure to Monteux was a BBC 2-disc live set of Monteux conducting Regine Crespin in Berlioz's La Damnation de Faust. I enjoyed it a great deal. It was only in print for about 4 minutes, though.
I first heard Monteux in his 1961 recording of Franck's Symphony, which is also the first time I heard that great piece. I was 6, and remember exactly where I was. It transfixed me and when I had to turn the record over, I ran to the turntable to hear the magnificent rest of the symphony.
One of my favorite teen years memories was a RCA sampler disc - Showcase in Sound 1956 on which a number of conductors make short comments on their recent recordings: Beecham on Boheme; Reiner on Beethoven 7; Munch on Beethoven 6, etc. It cost $1.98. Especially charming was Monteux remembering Massenet's Manon. He has always been one of my favorite conductors. I still have the disc and listen to it now and then.
I had the pleasure of seeing Monteux conduct in person, and attending an informal question/answer session with him. That would have been some time toward the end of '57 or the first half of '58. He was guest conductor of the Eastman-Rochester Symphony Orchestra. I thought he was absolutely delightful. At the beginning of the question/answer session, he made it clear that he would not entertain any questions about his 1913 performance of the Rite of Spring. When asked about the refusal of many orchestras to hire African American musicians (which was an issue at that time), it was clear that he disliked any form of racial discrimination. I especially recall him saying, "I am colored too.... pink!"
He was also Jewish, so he certainly understood the issue.
Sadly, Pierre Monteux passed away before he could conduct at the first Montreaux Jazz Festival. Although probably not provoking a riot as had happened at the 1913 Paris premiere, his reading of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring might still have wowed them, as that was Charlie Parker's favorite piece of music.
Monteux's mono 1941 La Valse with the San Francisco Symphony is amazing. Monteux puts so much relentless drive, momentum, and apocalyptic doom into the piece without losing the glamour, sumptuousness, and grace of Ravel's waltz. His faster than usual tempo is bracing. The SFSO plays like demons and the very loud tam tam crashes are thrilling. This is a smokin La Valse that everyone should experience.
Reply
I wholeheartedly agree with you about "Period Performances." That said. The only PM I've heard is Weber's Jubel Overture (Heil Dir Im Siegerkranz aka God Save The King aka My Country Tis of Thee) and loved it. But he does a throw in kitchen sink finale show in the last few bars with the timpani blasting tonic/dominant that I know Weber didn't write.
Deeply appreciate d.
I totally agree with you Dave regarding these "period" instrument people. My violin/viola teacher at college was a "grand pupil" of Ysaye. She would frown upon my playing unnecessary open strings, I was always taught to use the lower strings rather than open strings. To my ears the reason is obvious, open strings sound horrible and render vibrato impossible (more evidence of the use of vibrato in previous years), especially when played at a lower pitch. Speaking personally, of course, I find listening to any music from Haydn onwards played using ubiquitous open strings and with no vibrato just horrible and the lower pitch renders the sound so sour, yuck!
And every violin treatise from the dawn of time warns against playing on open strings.
Why, I ask myself, if the HIP crowd is so intent on studying ancient recordings for clues to performance practice in 19th century music, do they not adopt the very obvious and almost ubiquitous portamento practice of string playing then prevalent? Even in great orchestras like the NYP in the 20s.
Could it be that it doesn't fit the narrative of an antiseptic, at times emotionally attenuated severity of style they foster? A real head scratcher.
Dear Mr Hurwitz, thanks for your untiring work that accompanied me since the pandemic began. I'm pretty sure you will disagree with me, but I have to make a point when it comes to your position on period instruments in 19th and 20th century repertoire. It's a sure thing that Monteux attended the premiere of the Franck symphony and Toscanini played the premiere of Otello. But to take the recordings of both works by these conducters as witness for how the works sounded in the times of their composers doesn't convince me. Both conductors were such characterful musical personalities that I'm sure they had at the end of their careers a quite personal approach to the works after a long time of developing as musicians in their century. So I think Otello under Toscanini sounded quite different then 1887. And that's what fascinating me at experiments like van Immerssel's Anima Eterna for example. His Ravel CD was quite an experience for me. And it made a big difference! Modern piano or Erard makes a big difference. The woodwinds in Bolero blend in a totally different way then in modern orchestra. If Ravel would have preferred a Steinway nowadays and if some of the structures of the composition could be heard more satisfyingly on a modern instrument is for me a totally different question. I'm fascinated by the possibility of listening to the music in a way the composer could have heard it and what's to learn from that. Thanks for reading this long comment. All the best for you. Greetings from Germany.
I hear your point, but you misunderstand mine. I have no argument that Monteux or Toscanini evolved their own personal interpretations, but that is a generic observation. All artists do that. We are talking about the fundamental quality of sound of modern ensembles being perfectly legitimate, if not actually preferable, to that of earlier ensembles, and that is beyond question because that is what they did. The necessary corollary to this fact is that such differences as do exist (and we know there were some) simply do not matter, and therefore do not serve to legitimize "historically informed" performances in any special way, nor are they in any way inherently superior to modern performances. In short, a great performance is a great performance, and it will always be up to the performers to create one, not to the make or model of their instruments, or to tiny adjustments to their sound or modification of the rules dictating how they are played. I also believe, in your description above, that you grossly exaggerate the significance of the timbral differences you describe--something I see all the time. For example, the woodwinds in "Bolero" do not "blend in an entirely different way." That is a nonsensical statement, to be honest. They may sound a bit different, but you have no way of knowing that what you are hearing is "right" or "better," especially when the performers have a vested interest in exaggerating such differences in order to "prove" the "authenticity" of their approach. It is merely a slightly different sound than what you are used to. In and of itself, it has no value at all. I hear similar differences from one performance to the next anyway, depending on the ensemble, the hall, or the conductor.
It's always so satisfying when you revisit this whole "authenticity" question, Dave, though I never fail to leave a video like this without shaking my head, amazed and dismayed that in the face of obvious AUDIBLE evidence like Monteux's recordings (or Walter's or Klemperer's.), there persists this popular HIP dogma about a different and "right" way to play this 19th century music. Baffles me to see the praise heaped on perverse ventures like Roth's Eroica or other "authentic" readings that manage to get the music so dead-wrong. What are people actually HEARING? Beats me. Anyhow, thanks for rehearsing the arguments--even if it seems the HIP crowd doesn't feel the need to engage them.
Thanks for an excellent video. I just love your views regarding the period instrument 'cult'.
The very notion that an orchestra is obligated to play period instruments matching the composer s time line of the actual composition is like entering a modern car race with a Model T Ford .The progression from the Old style of orchestral playing to our modern day New and improved style or orchestral playing should be welcomed, not frowned on.
I agree 100% with the logic and substantially with the idea that the differences in playing style between now and 120 years ago are not material to the musical result. However I do see exceptions in two main areas, and I wonder if these are more important for singers and instrumentalists than orchestras.
The first is the impact of having to create a bigger and bigger sound to fill bigger halls. The reason this is more relevant to singers and instrumentalists than orchestras is that with the latter you can just add more players. Wagner or Verdi singers with bigger voices tend to be less agile/less "bel canto", and it is harder to play fast and fleet on big modern Steinways, built to fill big modern halls, than on early 20th century Bechsteins or Erards (Moriz Rosenthal famously said he couldn't achieve his pianistic effects on a modern Steinway). So I find a lot of unreconstructed modern performances slow and heavy.
The second is the 'literalist revolution' that took place from the 1930s to 1950s. Examples: the taboo around portamento (also an expressive device like vibrato). The 'respect the note values' movement which decided that all quavers had to be more or less the same length. The reluctance to add variations or ornaments to repeats. Again I think there was always less scope for this kind of freedom in orchestral music, so I hear greater differences in these respects between performance practice now and in historical recordings in vocal/instrumental music than in orchestral music.
Importantly, I don't think we have to look to period instrument performers to approaches that successfully bridge that gap. There is no real difference in kind in performance practice between, say, Nelson Freire, and 'Golden-age' pianists, or between Maria Callas and golden-age singers. And if you want lovely, fleet, graceful, non-shouty Brahms, Andras Schiff does that beautifully in his recent recording of the concertos, albeit with a slimmed-down orchestra and an old Bösendorfer.
I think the "bigger hall" argument is exaggerated. There have always been performances with large forces--think the Handel festivals of the 18th century, for example. But more to the point, if what we are talking about is "authenticity," then there is no question about the kind of singers and voices composers such as Wagner and Verdi required, and that is a stylistic feature of their music, not a function of the size of the room. As for Rosenthal's comment, I never pay attention to artists who complain about what they can't do and blame the instrument. Rosenthal was a great artist, but what he couldn't do someone else no doubt could.
Many singers a century ago or so had huge voices who were in no way less agile or less bel Canto than their smaller voiced colleagues and successors. Flagstad, Frida Leider, Eva Turner. Friederich Schorr, Rosa Ponselle all had tremendous voices yet had great agility and could turn corners quickly as needed to fulfill the demands of the music. It was a byword in London in the 20s that if you wanted to hear bel canto singing at Covent Garden you went to the German performances. And Leider sang and recorded Gluck and Verdi. The French tenor Leon Escalais had a voice which would shake the rafters yet he sported a magnificent trill and great agility as his records prove. It's not the instrument but the training and finesse in its use.
@@bbailey7818 So has singing technique changed in a significant way and why? Or were the singers you mention exceptions/geniuses rather than representative of their time?
I mean, point taken, my “big halls” idea is full of holes (one more hole being the rise of mass recordings in the 1950s).
I stand by my second point - a range of expressive techniques (agogics, portamento, ornamentation/variation) fell into disfavour some time around the 1930s and one thing you hear period instrument people trying to do in a more or less maladroit way (Bezuidenhout Beethoven piano concertos, anyone?) is resurrect them under the mantle of scholarly respectability
I have two contrasting observations/questions to add to the vibrato thread: 1. In most period practice performances I hear of choral works using soloists and operas, the singer (soloists) almost always (perhaps less so some of the male altos and Emma Kirkby) use vibrato significantly. Anywhere in the world where the violin is played traditionally, it has been praised for it's ability to imitate the human voice, so.......why would there be a doctrine where the singers use vibrato but the violins do not? (some great baroque violinists like Manze or Biondi do often flourish their notes with vibrato). 2. In contrast though, I have heard you mention Dave how composers like Haydn, Boccherini, and Gluck, often marked in their scores where vibrato is to be used, so doesn't that sort of imply that in the other sections it is used much less? (I have had these questions on my mind for a while now). Going now to check out the Monteux 10 best, take care!
1. Singers have no choice. All human voices have a natural level of vibrato, which training can sometimes modify but only eliminate for brief periods as a special effect. This has been known (and discussed) for many centuries.
2. Your second question answers your first. Vibrato is not one thing. There is vibrato to create a warm, singing tone, and vibrato as a special effect. Period instrument folks emphasize "vibrato as an ornament," but ignore the more usual, timbral variety even though period sources mention it and support its use. It's also worth noting that most vibrato is inaudible as such--it only strikes the ear as pleasant tone, but you don't hear a actual oscillation in pitch. Only very wide or very slow vibrato is detectable at all for most listeners.
AMEN!!
Thank you Dave for another food-thought video! For me, the bottom line is the period people's will to expand their repertoire beyond the boundaries of the baroque era. The Hip mouvement was perfect in the rediscovery of that music, which used actually different instruments from those used from the 19th Century onward (eg dying-cow viola da gamba, viola da braccio, lute, harpsichord, etc.). Hence the creation of a sound totally artificial for classic, romantic and tardoromantic music, that never existed in the reality of orchestra's practice from the 19th century onward. And this is just for the sake of playing not only Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and so on, but to perform even tardoromantic repertoire and sound different for the sake of being different (frankly, how much the orchestra that premiered Daphnis and Cloe in 1912 could be different from today's orchestras?) and, even more, for the sheer inability to adapt their playing's style from one composer to another. So, the same approach that works perfectly with the baroque music, becomes totally nonsense with Mahler (the adagio of his fourth Symphony played by Xavier Roth in his last record is simply unlistenable, sounds like a bad joke; just to mention one of ten thousand possibile exemples), Bruckner, Ravel, etc. Ultimately, the whole thing is a result of the hip's conductors ego that, with very few exceptions, are only able to use the same formula for all the repertoire, no matter if this is a 18th century's concerto grosso or a huge fin de siecle's Symphony for modern orchestra. It's a real sad situation, expecially for the music, that is always more often presented in the worst possible way.
At this point, most sentient beings can agree that the HIP movement has really no idea what it's doing in music after the baroque period. Just listen to Kent Nagano's Rheingold or Norrington's anything. Even now, most HIP is the most hardcore Modernist garbage you'll ever hear. There are winds of change but they are still the minority.
So I have to ask why don't more of my conductor colleagues actually listen to the great masters like Monteux or Toscanini or Walter? Why not dig deeper and listen to Abendroth or Max Fiedler or Oskar Fried? Why do so many dismiss Mengelberg or Furtwängler or Stokowski? After all, they were also born around the same time as Monteux! The dogma of the postwar period poisoned their legacies when in fact, they were simply a reflection of the many facets of the romantic style, all equally legitimate regardless of personal taste.
I just hope that these HIPsters finally realize that for music after 1800, the instruments matter less than how we actually play stylistically.
For those interested in Late Romantic style, check out all the piano rolls of composers like Mahler, Debussy, Grieg, or Percy Grainger etc.! Fascinating stuff!!
I often thought that many of the historical justified performances, with all the wild guessing that comes along with it, was the result of a certain narcissism and a quest for commercial success. And people, who don't know much about classical music and can't judge performances very well, can be fooled a lot. They often believe everything they are told. There is critical thinking and there is critical listening, both not very popular nowadays.
Points well made. The second point- 'the quest for commercial success'- is a key motivator for 'innovation' or trends (e.g., the 'period music' or the 'authenticity' movement in classical music) in many academic disciplines and artistic domains. Ego and narcissism being what they are, academics and artists (and to be fair, entrepreneurs and politicians) are motivated to try to find a way to differentiate themselves from the pack, whether or not it represents accuracy or benefits others. A strong viewpoint, consistently sold, can bring fame as well as money, regardless of its accuracy or value. Otherwise, one must rely upon sheer excellence or luck to advance in a given field, and often that is not as reliable as creating an attention-getting niche, whether or not it really serves the issue or the audience.
As a long-time video watcher and Classics Today Insider, I find your HIP-critical lectures the least charming feature of your talks.
In this case, I expected a positive discussion of Pierre Monteux as a conductor across the decades. I feel you used this video as a way to express (again) your already well-known and regularly repeated views on the topic.
I have tried to be measured in the hope that you will read this comment. I don’t expect you to mute your criticism based on the comments of someone who has not been a life-long classical music listener. I do hope you get my point.
Sure I get your point. Read the comments of those who love my discussions of this topic. I think it matters. I can't please everyone all the time, and I'm sorry you don't see the "charm." But I'm not sorry enough to stop talking about this issue.