Furtwängler o la pesadilla de su discografía

A propósito de Papa Francesco (cuando no era Papa, claro), tiene sus palabras sobre Furtwangler:

sacado de una entrevista:

–¿Una composición musical?
–Entre las que más admiro está la obertura Leonora Nº 3 de Beethoven en la versión de Furtwängler, que es, a mi entender, el mejor director de algunas de sus sinfonías y de las obras de Wagner.

en:
http://www.abc.com.py/edicion-impresa/internacionales/solidas-convicciones-y-un-perfil-muy-humano-del-papa-francisco-550517.html

Me ha llegado esto:

Si bien esta colección de grabaciones beethovenianas en directo de Furtwängler durante la guerra se publicó en el sello Music & Arts en al año 2006, acaba de aparecer esta reseña en The Guardian de Londres, frimada por Andrew Clements:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/mar/28/beethoven-symphonies-world-war-two-review

Mientras Reyes avanza en su empresa

https://soundcloud.com/deutschegrammophon/fischer-dieskau-tells-the-musical-story-of-his-life-part-6

Vamos a complicar un poco más la pesadilla de la discografía furtwängleriana, al final, y eso que me lo negué -¡¡no quería repetir más!!-, he caído y a vueltas estoy con las tres cajas (Audite, Orfeo-Salzburgo, Orfeo-Viena). He estado leyendo los artículos-reseñas del eminente Henry Fogel -de los pocos críticos que leo con entusiasmo- y me encuentro con alguna sorpresa, en algunos puntos discrepa con El Reyes... a ver cuando lo acabo de escuchar todo   Lo pongo por aquí, las negritas, subrayados, y exclamaciones son mías:

CAJA AUDITE



BY HENRY FOGEL

For those who collect recordings by Wilhelm Furtwängler it will be hard to overstate the importance of a new 12-disc set by the German company Audite. Audite made an arrangement with the German Radio system to obtain the rights to use the original master tapes made by RIAS (Radio in the American Sector), Berlin. Although none of the material in this set is new Read more Egmont Overture, and Symphonies Nos. 5 and 6. The Egmont was broadcast, but the tape was not kept, so we don’t have it here—even though it was recorded live by DG, and issued on that label. This set contains only the RIAS recordings that survived, nothing more, nothing less.

To say that it is a miracle to have these is to understate the case—at least for those of us who love this conductor’s work. A good deal of this material has only been available in cramped, compressed, and/or distorted sound. Now it comes to us with an openness and fullness that we could only dream of, and it makes clear something that the poorer recorded sound did not—Furtwängler’s very keen ear for color.

Since all of these performances have been in circulation, I will not review each one with any detail, but rather make what I feel are minimally necessary comments about each one. And to save valuable Fanfare space, instead of a complete headnote, I will identify each performance as I comment on it, including the date. All are with the Berlin Philharmonic. The Audite set is 21.403, and, as I indicated, it consists of 12 well-filled monaural CDs, with very informative notes (if, perhaps, a bit over-the-top in discussing Furtwängler’s interpretations) in German and English. Anyone interested in Wilhelm Furtwängler’s conducting simply must have this set. I am going to list the works below in the order they appear in the set (note that some works appear more than once), which is largely chronological.

Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 5 and 6 (5/25, 1947). This coupling has long been famous among Furtwängler collectors. It is his first time conducting after a two-and-a-half year imposed silence, through the end of the war and his de-Nazification hearings. Now he was standing on the podium of his Berlin Philharmonic for the first time since January 1945, and the force and in-your-face punch of these performances is unmistakable. DG issued the Fifth, and the Egmont Overture from a repeat of the program two days later, but this is the very first night. It has been issued before, but never with such rich sound. Even the DG from May 27 sounds thin and edgy compared to this. There is an uncertainty, an insecurity, in the ensemble—one suspects everyone’s nerves were at their extreme edges on this night—and the May 27 DG performance is cleaner. But the sheer visceral force of these performances, really heard for the first time because of the sound quality, is irreplaceable.

Mendelssohn: Overture to Midsummer Night’s Dream; Beethoven: Violin Concerto (Menuhin, soloist; 9/28/1947). There was also a Beethoven Seventh on this concert that has not survived. Tahra has issued these two works from a performance identified as September 30 (although Rene Tremine’s Furtwängler concert listing states that this program was only given on September 28 and 29). Whatever the accuracy of Tahra’s date, this is definitely a different performance, and to my knowledge the first release ever of these performances from September 28. That was a historic occasion because it was the first concert after the war at which Yehudi Menuhin played in public in Germany with Furtwängler, which was Menuhin’s very courageous statement of support from one Jewish artist at a time when many others were shunning the conductor. (They had actually performed together in Lucerne a month earlier.) I made a direct A-B comparison between this Audite release and Tahra FURT 1020, and preferred these performances and the recorded sound. The sound here is more naturally balanced and clear, and the performances have the spontaneity one would expect from the first night in a set. Furtwängler collectors will have to have this, as it is the first “new” item in the conductor’s discography in many years.

Bach: Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D; Schubert: Symphony No. 8, “Unfinished”; Brahms: Symphony No. 4 (10/24/1948). This has the appeal of being a complete Furtwängler concert, as given in 1948, so we can feel the shape of the whole evening. The Bach has been issued by DG, in thinner, harder-edged sound. This is not Bach for today’s HIP listeners, but in its old-fashioned way it has plenty of thrust and spine. The Schubert “Unfinished” will be a major discovery for many. It was previously issued on Japanese Columbia and Vox Turnabout LPs, and on CD only by the German Furtwängler Society and the hard-to-find Priceless 13272. The sound here is in a different league from earlier releases, and most collectors probably won’t even have the performance at all. This performance has a touch more rhythmic bite than the 1953 performance issued by DG (which also appears in this set and will be noted later), but is basically similar to the later one in its interpretive profile. This Brahms Fourth is also a rarity—having been issued only by Tahra and by the Japanese Wilhelm Furtwängler Center. Once again, the sound quality here is superb—opening up our ears to the drama and thrust of this performance. There are some ensemble problems, but they do not detract from a performance of enormous momentum and cumulative power. The wartime Brahms Fourth may be even more dramatic, but the richer sound here makes this my own favorite of the Furtwängler recordings of this work.

Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 (3/15/1949). Furtwängler conducted the Bruckner Eighth on March 13, 14, and 15, 1949. No recording seems to survive of the 13th. The 14th and 15th performances have been issued on a number of labels and have been confused with each other and frequently misidentified. The performance from the 14th has been issued on Testament and EMI. This one from the 15th is on Music & Arts, and is also part of an EMI Bruckner set. But once again, Audite’s access to the RIAS masters pays dividends. I compared this with all the others from both dates and found this the most satisfying sounding of all. The finest Furtwängler Bruckner Eighth is still the 1944 Vienna reading, with astonishing tension and drama combined with sublime beauty, and it is best heard on a Japanese EMI release or on Music & Arts 1209. This performance from 1949 doesn’t quite reach those heights, but the sound picture is much more satisfying, so it offers a more complete sense of the conductor’s view of the music.

Schumann: Manfred Overture; Brahms: Symphony No. 3; Fortner: Violin Concerto (Gerhard Taschner); Wagner: Götterdämmerung Funeral Music; Die Meistersinger Prelude (12/18–19/1949). Yes, that’s right—that is all one concert’s program! And an oddly structured one at that (I believe intermission came after the Brahms Third). Again, though, it is great to have a complete Furtwängler concert reproduced as it was given (though the recordings stem from two different nights of the repeated program). The richness of the string-playing in the Brahms, along with the rhythmic incisiveness he brings to the outer movements, adds a power and concentration to this music that it sometimes lacks. On the other hand, sometimes one has the feeling that the conductor is adding more weight to this work than it can stand. The 1954 performance (reviewed below later in this set) holds together more firmly. Once again, though the sound here far surpasses previous releases. The Wagner excerpts and Schumann Overture were issued by DG, and the sound here is only marginally preferable. The big surprise is the Fortner. The prior releases on Fonit Cetra and AS Disc did not do justice to the performance, or even the work. Wolfgang Fortner (1907–1987) wrote in a style that will connect with anyone who responds to Shostakovich or Prokofiev, with the same spiky rhythms and wit, though slightly less orchestral imagination and melodic inspiration. But it is an enjoyable work to hear once in a while, and it shows a side of the conductor we rarely experience. Taschner (a BPO concertmaster) plays it quite well.

Handel: Concerto grosso, op. 6/10; Brahms: Variations on a Theme by Haydn; Hindemith: Concerto for Orchestra; Beethoven: Symphony No. 3, “Eroica” (6/20/1950). This is even longer than the December 1949 concert—101 minutes of music! People had longer attention spans in those days. Once again, all of this material has been available, but not in this sound quality. Music & Arts and Tahra have issued this “Eroica,” and it is a strong performance—but not as strong as either the 1944 Vienna wartime reading or the 1952 reading reviewed below. When this performance is heard with the fullness of sound available here, it does gain in stature. Even Furtwängler’s richly colored conducting fails to convince me of the merits of Hindemith’s dry and academic Concerto for Orchestra. The Handel is an interesting reminder of a time when major conductors and orchestras played this music without fear of attack from the purists, and the Brahms Variations sounds warmer and richer than on DG’s release of the same performance.

Gluck: Alceste Overture (9/5/1051). This is all that survives of a concert that opened Berlin’s Schillertheater. That is particularly distressing because the other work on that program was a Beethoven Ninth, and to have had one with this level of fidelity would have been something indeed. This lovely performance has been issued only sporadically in Germany and Japan on CD, and this will be new even to many collectors. He shapes the music warmly and gives it more weight than his 1942 studio recording of the work.

Weber: Der Freischütz Overture; Hindemith: Die Harmonie der Welt; Beethoven: Symphony No. 3, “Eroica” (12/8/1952). This, too, is a complete concert, and it is one I would like to have been at. The “Eroica” is almost as powerful as the famous 1944 Vienna recording, but in such superior sound that it becomes the more satisfying overall experience for the listener. Furtwängler’s way of building orchestral sound from the bottom up is often weakened by poor recorded sound—but not here. We hear everything, and we hear it all in the right proportions. This is a deeply moving, even thrilling experience. This Hindemith has always struck me as one of his more emotionally effective and communicative works, and this performance has always sounded to me as if it would convey the work’s beauty and power if one could only hear it. A later Salzburg performance has been the preferred one in the past because of superior sound—but no longer. This has just the right combination of leanness and warmth, more weight than most conductors give this music, but never too much.

Schubert: Rosamunde Overture; Symphonies Nos. 8 and 9 (9/15/53). If I had known in 1953, when I was 11, what I know now, I would probably have tried to find my way to Berlin to hear this concert. This all-Schubert program is filled with warmth, tenderness, drama, and wit—all in the right proportions. Once again, the superior sound quality comes quite close to early 1950s studio recording sound.

Handel: Concerto grosso, op. 6/5; Brahms: Symphony No. 3; Blacher: Concert Music for Orchestra. R. Strauss: Don Juan; Wagner: Tristan and Isolde “Prelude and Liebestod” (4/27/1954). Once again, a long and somewhat oddly constructed Furtwängler program. Clearly he was one of those who didn’t like to end with Brahms’s Third, because of its soft ending—but then again, he did end with the “Liebestod,” not exactly a bring-the-house-down piece either! The interest here is twofold: the conductor’s best-recorded rendition of the Brahms Third, and the Blacher available for the first time in good sound. The Blacher is written in Stravinsky’s neo-Classical vein, though without Stravinsky’s imagination. Still, it is nice to hear Furtwängler in this kind of repertoire, which he visited rarely. The Strauss and Wagner obviously benefit from the improved sonics, though both were released by DG in transfers that were fairly good.

Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 6 and 5 (5/23, 1954). And so this set ends as it began, with Beethoven’s Sixth and Fifth Symphonies combined on one program, almost seven years to the day after the concert marking the conductor’s return to Berlin (and about six months before his death). Furtwängler obviously saw these symphonies as a set, and played them together on more than one occasion (and he played them in this order—and on this occasion with no overture). Although the conductor was ill and could be uneven in the final year of his life, this is one of his truly great concerts—and now that one hears it from the master tapes one realizes what a momentous evening it was. (Tahra’s earlier release of these performances was quite good, but this is even better.) If you want to convince a non-believer in the power of Furtwängler as a conductor, this disc should do it as well as any.

CAJA ORFEO-SALZBURGO:



This set is extraordinarily valuable for the Furtwängler collector who does not already own good transfers of these performances. Orfeo, working in cooperation with the Salzburg Festival and Austrian Radio, has access to the best sources, and the transfers are all the best available of each of these performances (and some of them have been issued many, many times over the years on any number of labels). The value is enhanced because it contains all of Furtwängler’s preserved orchestral performances from Salzburg, and because it contains a number of complete concerts. The ability to listen to an entire concert as conducted by Furtwängler, from beginning to end, to re-live just how the entire evening was shaped—this is   something very special. However, it is also fair to point out that in many cases the performances here do not represent Furtwängler’s best recorded versions of these pieces—and thus I would not necessarily recommend this to the generalist who wants a few Furtwängler performances, nor to the beginning collector just starting to explore this great conductor. For example, the Bruckner Fifth is somewhat soft-grained and lacking in real tension when compared to the wartime Berlin performance issued by DG and others. And both the wartime live Berlin Schubert Ninth and the Studio DG recording of that work surpass this 1953 Salzburg version in terms of unity of architecture and perfectly shaded dynamics.

Standouts in this set include the Pfitzner, a work that deserves more exposure and can rarely have been more lovingly conducted, the Mendelssohn, the remarkably dramatic reading of the Hindemith, and the truly lovely Wayfarer Songs, fresher and more alert to nuance than the studio recording that Fischer-Dieskau and Furtwängler made. None of the rest is by any means bad; this conductor is almost always worth listening to. There is always Furtwängler’s unique combination of dramatic utterance and beauty and suppleness of phrase.

A few notes about the production: Strauss’s Don Juan is not a live performance, but an EMI studio recording. The live performance from the same 1953 concert as the Hindemith and Schubert has not survived, but Orfeo wisely wanted to re-create the full concert program here. The accompanying notes, analyzing Furtwängler’s way with the music, are helpful and insightful, and decently translated into English. In sum, this is a very worthwhile set for serious collectors interested in one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century

CAJA ORFEO-VIENA:



WILHELM FURTWÄNGLER: The Vienna Concerts 1944–1954  •  Wilhelm Furtwängler, cond; Vienna PO  •  ORFEO 834118, mono (18 CDs: 979:00)

This remarkable achievement is an essential collection for anyone interested in the conducting of Wilhelm Furtwängler. Nothing here is a new discovery. All the material has been released before, some of it many times. I have spent considerable time doing A-B comparisons with earlier reissues. In most cases, Orfeo’s work surpasses prior efforts, even those done at a very high level, simply because Orfeo had access to the Read more  Fanfare  headnote, I thought it would be easier on the reader to go through the contents in the (almost) chronological order that Orfeo used in compiling the set, with recording details given along with the comments. The monaural sound is more than listenable even in the worst instances. Where performances derive from the same concert, I will treat them together as a unit. All performances are with the Vienna Philharmonic except for a single example (the 1952 excerpts from Brahms’s  A German Requiem ) with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra.


The 18-disc set comes with excellent and extensive notes, in German and English. As of this writing, it is available at ArkivMusic.com for $103.49, and on Amazon, where their list price is $116.87, but they have copies from other sellers ranging from $89.32 to $111.00. Documentation is excellent.


MOZART  Symphony No. 40  (Musikvereinssaal, 6/2–3/1944).  BEETHOVEN  Leonore  Overture No. 3  (Musikvereinssaal, 6/2–3/1944).  SCHUBERT  Rosamunde:  Entr’acte No. 3 (Musikvereinssaal, 6/2–3/1944)


This program is from a  Magnetofonkonzert  given twice specifically for the purpose of recording for broadcast. We have no information about which performance comes from which of the two dates. The Mozart and Schubert sound more natural here than in prior Tahra and Music & Arts releases. There is no feeling of artificial reverb or ambience being applied, just the warm feeling of the Grosser Saal in the Musikverein, one of the world’s finest concert halls. The Mozart is highly successful, quicker than one might expect and with very careful attention to balances and color. The conductor’s feel for orchestral color is clarified by the surprisingly good 1944 sound quality. The Schubert is warm and beautifully phrased. The  Leonore  Overture has been issued more widely, most successfully by Eduardo Chibas at furtwanglersound.com. Orfeo’s is about the equal of that transfer. The performance seems a bit tentative for the first 10 minutes or so, and then picks up energy. It is not, I think, Furtwängler’s finest surviving recording of this piece.


BRUCKNER  Symphony No. 8  (Musikvereinssaal, 10/17/1944)


This is another  Magnetofonkonzert , given only once. It is one of Furtwängler’s greatest surviving Bruckner performances, and it has never sounded so good. It has had a spotty history. Early releases (Unicorn, Music & Arts, even DG) were plagued by what sounded like tape flutter, making sustained woodwinds sound as if they were underwater Many of those editions were also pitched a bit sharp. The first really listenable transfer was a two-disc Japanese EMI box, hard to find and very expensive. EMI eventually came up with something as good on one disc, and Pristine and Chibas improved on that somewhat. But Orfeo is better yet. The orchestral sound is more natural, with no sense of any kind of artificial boosting or enhancement of any part of the orchestral palette, and with a more naturally balanced frequency response from highs to lows.


The performance is staggering in its cumulative power. Despite some overwhelming climaxes in the first movement and the tremendous weight conveyed by the climax of the slow movement, there is still something left for adding one level more in the Finale. That last movement is by far the hardest to bring off convincingly, but Furtwängler has a surer sense of its shape than any conductor I have heard. Anyone who cares about the music of Bruckner should know this recording, and this is the version to own. If you want more detail, you can read my review of Pristine’s reissue of this performance in  Fanfare ’s Classical Hall of Fame (34:5), but know that here the sound quality is even better. The performance uses the Haas edition of the score, but modified somewhat by Furtwängler.


BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 3,  “Eroica” (Musikvereinssaal, 12/19/1944)


This is a very famous recording (another  Magnetofonkonzert)  that has been issued with reasonably good sound on a number of labels (Bayer, Preiser, Tahra, Music & Arts, Opus Kura, and furtwanglersound.com). The degree of improvement by Orfeo is not significant but it is still an improvement. There is a warmer, more natural sound to the orchestra (I know I’ve used that descriptor a few times already, but it is the most accurate one I can come up with). One is not conscious of listening to an “historic” recording after a few minutes, even though it is a 1944 monaural effort.


The intensity of this reading is searing. Fierce accents, an emphasis on the dissonant harmonies that must have shocked in Beethoven’s day, a deeply tragic Funeral March, and a wild exuberance in the Finale are all qualities that mark this “Eroica.” The interpretive outline is similar to all existing Furtwängler performances of this piece, but everything is just a bit more extreme and intense. The result is an experience that is not for every day listening, but that on occasion can remind you that this is revolutionary music.


FRANCK  Symphony in d  (Musikvereinssaal, 1/28/1945).  BRAHMS  Symphony No. 2  (Musikvereinssaal, 1/28/1945)


These two performances (just fitting onto one disc) represent a crucial day in Furtwängler’s life. A few weeks earlier the conductor had learned from friends with close ties to the Nazis that he was slated for assassination. Goebbels had enough of Furtwängler’s support of Jewish musicians in the Berlin Philharmonic, and other Jewish friends. The conductor’s refusal to join the Nazi party was another offense. Albert Speer was apparently one of those who warned Furtwängler to get out. The conductor made his plans very quietly, conducted his final Berlin concert on January 23, and then did three public concerts in Vienna on January 27–29, all with this two-work program of Franck and Brahms. The January 28th concert was recorded and preserved. From February 1–6 he hid in the Austrian resort of Dornbirn, and on February 7 he crossed into Switzerland. He remained there in exile until early 1947.


One cannot hear these electric performances without knowing this background. He had a long and close association with the VPO, and he was in these concerts standing in front of them for what might be the last time ever—it certainly would be the last time for the foreseeable future—and he couldn’t even tell them. In the recordings of that preceding final Berlin concert and this Viennese one, flames almost erupt from the music-making, particularly the Brahms.


Both of these performances have circulated before, but once again Orfeo must have had access to superior source material, or else they did better work with the same original material. Most previous releases were extremely constricted, afflicted with flutter, pitched incorrectly, and distorted at climaxes. On some of the worst, it was like listening to an orchestra over the telephone. Even the best of the prior releases, as a part of Andante’s VPO/Brahms set, is congested and cramped. While the results of Orfeo’s transfer engineering are still not as good sounding as the  Magnetofonkonzerts  noted above, they are far superior to earlier editions. These sound like moderately limited monaural studio recordings from the mid-1940s, lacking the ideal spaciousness and richness of sound but more than listenable.The performances are irreplaceable.


MOZART  Concerto for Two Pianos in E?,  K 365 (Paul Badura-Skoda, Dagmar Bella (pn); Musikvereinssaal, 2/8/1949)


This is the first post-war Furtwängler Vienna performance to survive, and only this work remains from the all-Mozart program. Badura-Skoda was at the beginning of his career in 1949, and Bella was Furtwängler’s daughter. The problem is that the performance given here is not, in fact, what it claims to be. I want to thank  Fanfare  colleague Ronald Grames for reminding me of the controversy surrounding this performance because I had simply assumed Orfeo, with its sources within the Vienna Philharmonic, had the right one. The problem is that there is no official VPO recording, because this was not an “official” VPO concert—VPO members played for a Mozart society event in the Musikvereinssaal. The only source for this was Paul Badura-Skoda himself, and when he first authorized its release to the French Furtwängler Society, he mistakenly gave them the wrong recording (a performance that he played with Jörg Demus and conductor Hans Swarowsky). Other labels perpetuated the error with reissues, including Music & Arts in their first release. Eventually Badura-Skoda realized his mistake and gave Music & Arts the correct performance (which is authenticated by an announcer introducing it). The two are similar in general interpretive outline, but there are enough different details to make clear that they are not the same. Ronald Grames and I are co-authoring an article for a future issue of  Fanfare  on the joint bit of investigative music-journalism we engaged in to determine with finality that this was  not  the Furtwängler performance (!!!!!!!!!!). I was in touch with an archivist of the Vienna State Opera and with Professor Gottfried Kraus, who produced this set (and who now acknowledges that this is not the Furtwängler performance), and Mr. Grames was in touch with Paul Badura-Skoda. In the end, it doesn’t matter a great deal, because this is not a piece of music that calls on great interpretive insight from the conductor. The only release I know of that is the genuine article, for those who are Furtwängler completists, is Music & Arts CD-1097, but be warned that the sound is not very satisfying.


MOZART  Concerto for Piano No. 22 in E?,  K 482 (Paul Badura-Skoda, pn; Schlosstheater Schönbrunn, 1/27/52)


The Concerto was paired with the big Serenade for 13 Winds, which Furtwängler recorded in the studio. The live performance of the Serenade from this concert has not survived. This is the best of the three surviving Mozart concerto performances by Furtwängler (the one above plus the D-Minor Concerto with Yvonne Lefébure). Badura-Skoda seems more able to be free than he was in the Double Concerto, and he and Furtwängler are particularly rapt in the second movement. Again, Orfeo’s sound is significantly cleaner and fuller than releases on Music & Arts, the French Furtwängler Society, and Japanese Seven Seas. Some releases have incorporated a different performance of a segment of the orchestral introduction, but this one uses the right performance.


BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 9  (Irmgard Seefried, Rosette Anday, Julius Patzak, Otto Edelmann, soloists; Vienna Singakademie Ch; Musikvereinssaal, 1/7/1951)


This is one of the least-circulated of all of Furtwängler’s performances of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, having been released on Cetra and the Japanese Seven Seas label. It is one of three performances of the work in this set (there are 13 Furtwängler Ninths that have survived, one still unissued). The conductor’s way with this music is highly dramatic in the outer movements, spiritual in the Adagio. The three most important Furtwängler performances are the wartime Berlin (ferocious in its intensity), the reopening of Bayreuth in 1951, and his final Lucerne reading. This one surprised me in a positive way. I had only heard it on the muddy Seven Seas transfer some years ago, and Orfeo’s far richer sound makes for a more communicative experience. Slashing accents, thundering timpani, all add to the drama of a powerful first movement. The second movement seems sluggish at first, but builds to a very strong intensity by its conclusion. The Adagio hardly underwent any conceptual change in Furtwängler’s recorded performances, which date from 1937–1954. The conductor described that movement as “steeped in an otherworldliness that properly belongs to the sphere of religion….It seems as if the full purpose of the Adagio—which in spite of its profoundly contemplative character must remain an episode, part of a single uniform creative process—is only revealed in retrospect, when the finale is announced in frightening tones.” The movement in his hands unfolds slowly, indeed almost religiously. The Finale, as with the beginning of the second movement, lacks the tautness and incisive bite of other Furtwängler performances. The soloists are a squally bunch, except for Seefried, and the choral singing is occasionally ill-tuned and badly blended.


BRAHMS  A German Requiem:  Parts, 1, 3, 4, 5 (Vienna SO; Irmgard Seefried (sop); Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (bar); Vienna Singakademie Ch; Konzerthaus, 1/25/1951)


Only about half of this  German Requiem  has survived and that only from off-the-air amateur recordings, not from master tapes. The sound is muffled and compressed, lacking presence and color. Orfeo has significantly improved on the quality of the prior Japanese releases of these fragments, and it is now listenable. The music that survived represents approximately half of the work. Given the sonic inadequacies and less than first-rate soloists of the one full performance of Furtwängler’s that does survive (from Stockholm) it is a shame we don’t have the rest of this one. Seefried and Fischer-Dieskau are as great as you would expect them to be, the choral singing is better than it was in Beethoven’s Ninth a year earlier, and the conductor’s way with the music is simultaneously devotional and dramatic. Even as half a performance and with limited sonics, it is worth hearing.


BRAHMS  Variations on a Theme of Haydn . “Double” Concerto for Violin and Cello. Symphony No. 1  (Willi Boskovsky (vn); Emanuel Brabec (vc); Musikvereinssaal, 1/27/1951)


This is the middle of three performances of this program, and it has all been reissued on various labels by EMI. The Double Concerto has also been transferred by Pristine Audio. There is more focus and clarity to the Orfeo edition than is the case on EMI; there is not a great deal of difference between Pristine’s transfer and Orfeo’s. The former has a bit more ambience around the orchestral sound.


This all-Brahms concert is a real treasure. In  Fanfare  32:5 I reviewed this performance of the Double Concerto, and said: “There are only two Furtwängler performances of this that have been preserved, and this is decidedly the superior one. This is a performance that blisters in the outer movements but reaches depths of genuinely profound beauty in the Andante. Boskovsky and Brabec, both Vienna Philharmonic principals, play magnificently….Every time I hear this performance it sweeps me along from beginning to end.” I continue to feel the same way.


There are more energetic and dramatic performances by Furtwängler of the  Haydn Variations  and First Symphony, particularly the famous recording with the Hamburg Radio Orchestra, which also has superb sound. There is also a tauter Berlin Philharmonic Brahms First on DG. But these are certainly good, big-boned readings, and it is gratifying to be able to hear a complete Furtwängler concert exactly as he gave it, particularly in such warm sound.


BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 9  (Hilde Güden, Rosette Anday, Julius Patzak, Alfred Poell, soloists; Vienna Singakademie Ch; 2/3/1952, Musikvereinssaal)


Much of what I said above about the 1951 performance of the Ninth applies here too. The sound is somewhat warmer than on prior issues (Music & Arts and Andante), and we’d be grateful to have this if we didn’t have better alternatives. Again the first section of the Finale seems a bit unfocused, and in this performance the opening half of the first movement seems too heavy in its tread. Overall this is a slightly more convincing reading than the 1951, and the soloists are better, except for Patzak’s rather whiny tenor. The comparison with Andante’s version was interesting; even though the same transfer engineer oversaw both, they are not quite pitched the same. The Orfeo is pitched a bit lower, which may be partly responsible for what appears to be a warmer orchestral sound. The pitch difference is only detectable in a direct A-B comparison, or by examining the timings, but the difference is not insignificant. Total timing of music only for the four movements (all pauses subtracted) in the Andante transfer is 73:21, and the new Orfeo is 74:58. For two transfers of the same performance by the same engineer that is quite significant. The Orfeo sounds better to me.


BACH  Saint Matthew Passion:  Part One, Nos. 1–33 (Irmgard Seefried, Hildegard Rössel-Majdan, Julius Patzak, Hans Braun, Otto Wiener, soloists; Vienna Singakademie Ch; 4/6/1952, Konzerthaus, Vienna)


For the sake of completeness one can be glad this is here; it would be more valuable were there not a later complete performance. Previous issues of this (on Archipel and a Japanese LP) have sounded dreadful, and this is an improvement. But it is still muddy and distantly recorded. Despite some felicitous solo singing from Seefried and a sense of how Furtwängler approached this music, it is unlikely that many will listen to it more than once. Patzak’s Evangelist is raw-sounding.


BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 1  (11/29/1952, Musikvereinssaal)


This is one of the gems in this set—probably the finest of the five Beethoven Firsts we have from this conductor. It followed immediately upon the EMI recording sessions. In fact, there is some date confusion because most other releases of this performance date it as November 30, but Andante’s earlier version identified it as November 29, as does Orfeo. With Orfeo’s access to the VPO archives, I accept the 29th as the accurate date. November 24–27 were the recording sessions for Beethoven’s First and Third symphonies. On November 29–30 Furtwängler and the VPO gave two concerts featuring both of those works plus Mahler’s  Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen . Orfeo states that the Mahler and the “Eroica” recordings date from November 30, but the First from November 29.


Whatever the date, this performance of the First sizzles with energy. And while some of the prior reissues (Music & Arts and Tahra) were more than listenable, the sound here is notably more full and natural. Andante’s sound is closer to this, but still a bit hard-grained in comparison. This almost sounds as professionally recorded as the studio recording. You might expect Furtwängler to approach this rather heavily, but in fact much of it is fleet and light-textured. The second movement is absolutely lovely, with the conductor emphasizing the word “cantabile” in the  Andante cantabile con moto  marking. What Beethoven called, following tradition, a “Menuetto” is really the first of his scherzos, and so it is performed here with energy and tautness. The contrast between the slow introduction and main section of the Finale is dramatically emphasized. This won’t please those who insist on what we now call HIP, but all others will find this a stunning reading, and the conductor’s careful sense of balance and texture is more apparent in this transfer than it has ever been before.


MAHLER  Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen  (Alfred Poell, bar).  BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 3, “Eroica” (11/30/52, Musikvereinssaal)


These two works comprise the rest of a concert that began with Beethoven’s First Symphony (they made them longer in the old days, didn’t they?). This cycle is the only Mahler we have from Furtwängler, though he did conduct some of the symphonies before the war. There are two other performances, one live and one studio, with the young Fischer-Dieskau, and no one will pretend that Poell has the imagination and deep musical instincts to equal that great singer. There is something attractive about the sound of Poell’s darker bass-baritone voice in this music, but he struggles with some of the high tessitura, and despite the sonic improvement of this over prior reissues, it is unlikely to hold much interest from those who know the alternatives.


This “Eroica” lacks the dramatic impact of the 1944 performance noted above, but it is not without interest. Again, Orfeo’s sonics are an improvement over Tahra’s, with the latter’s seemingly added ambiance. While the live Beethoven First is quite similar to its contemporaneous studio recording in general interpretive outline, this “Eroica” performance is meaningfully different from the studio recording in many details of phrasing and articulation. John Ardoin, in his excellent book  The Furtwängler Record , notes that “the pace of the music is broken time and time again by heavy accents and very deliberate, marcato articulations in the lower strings…, with more  detaché  used in the upper strings than was Furtwängler’s norm. This results in a performance that is not always defensible in terms of the music, but one that exerts a curious fascination in its extremes and in light of the commercial disc.” Ardoin did not have the advantage of hearing the Tahra transfer when he wrote the book, only some inferior ones on Virtuoso and Nuova Era. Listening to Orfeo’s edition, one gets a different sense, because of a finer orchestral balance. The very strong bass line helps to carry the music through some of the pauses, and there is more of a sense of momentum than was evident in earlier transfers, though Tahra’s was close to this level. However, even with the help of Orfeo’s engineers, this recording suffers from close miking of the violins, resulting in some glare, and a general harshness. On balance, the 1944 performance reviewed above and the EMI studio recording are probably preferable versions.


GLUCK  Iphegenie in Aulis:  Overture.  FURTWÄNGLER  Symphony No. 2 in e  (2/22/1953, Musikvereinssaal)


Orfeo released this performance of the Symphony in an identical sounding transfer as a single disc, and in  Fanfare  18:5 I entered it into the Classical Hall of Fame. This is a great conductor making a most persuasive case for his own music, something quite different from performances by composers who are part-time conductors. Furtwängler brings out the power and the beauty, the pain, and the sense of hope that are all parts of this huge work, composed while the composer/conductor was in Switzerland, where he fled in 1945 when he was warned that the Nazis had him on a hit list. The recorded sound here is quite wonderful, and anyone interested in this musical figure should know this performance. In a word, this performance and recording are thrilling.


The Gluck which opened the concert has not received wide circulation, probably because of the excellent EMI recording made with the VPO a year later. I am only familiar with a fairly congested-sounding Japanese Disques Refrain release. This is a huge improvement, and it now seems a more satisfying performance than the EMI studio effort. The latter seems earthbound after one has heard this. Furtwängler brings huge energy and thrust to this big-boned reading (using Wagner’s edition of the music, rather than Mozart’s), builds his sound from the bottom up, and seems particularly inspired on this occasion. Perhaps it is because he was about to lead his own major work after the intermission.


BEETHOVEN  Symphony No. 9  (Irmgard Seefried, Rosette Anday, Anton Dermota, Paul Schöffler, soloists; Vienna Singakademie C; 5/30/1953, Musikvereinssaal)


This third performance of the Ninth in this set is the best. The shaping is more cohesive, particularly in the Finale, and Anton Dermota is a huge improvement over Julius Patzak. Orfeo has opened the sound up considerably when compared to prior releases (Music & Arts was the best I knew of). The fact is that the unique wartime Berlin reading, along with the reopening of the Bayreuth Festival in 1951 and the final performance in Lucerne in 1954 a few months before the conductor’s death, remain the essential Beethoven Ninths from Furtwängler. This is a fine one, but because of the stature of those alternatives this becomes of interest mainly to the specialist.


BRUCKNER  Symphony No. 8  (4/10/1954, Musikvereinssaal)


I reviewed earlier issues of this performance in  Fanfare  6:2 and 13:5. At the time I identified it as the Nowak edition of the score. In fact it is closer to the Schalk-edited 1892 published version, though Furtwängler has made his own modifications. The sound here is a huge improvement over prior issues except for Andante’s (to which it is similar), but it doesn’t help this rather limp performance. Only in the slow movement does one feel that one is in the presence of a great conductor. For the rest, the cohesion and momentum that this conductor usually brought to Bruckner’s massive symphonies are not in evidence, at least not to the degree one expects. In earlier reviews I questioned whether Furtwängler was really conducting this performance, but research with the archives of the VPO has convinced me that the performance is genuine. By April 1954 Furtwängler’s health was beginning to fail, and perhaps this was just an off day.


BACH  St. Matthew Passion  (Elisabeth Grümmer, Marga Höffgen, Anton Dermota, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Otto Edelmann, soloists; Vienna Singakademie Ch; Vienna Boys Ch; 4/15/1954, Konzerthaus, Vienna)


In a few details this differs from EMI’s release of this same performance (Réferences 5 65509 2). In order to fit it on two discs, EMI shortened the pauses between numbers. But those pauses are an integral part of the conception of the performance, and shortening them has a stronger effect on the overall shape and mood of the work than one might think, particularly in  this  performance. Secondly, above and beyond Furtwängler’s unfortunate cuts, EMI cut one additional bass recitative and aria. They claimed it was due to “insurmountable technical problems.” An earlier Fonit-Cetra LP reissue had that recitative and aria included (the aria is “Komm, süsses Kreuz, so will ich sagen”) and there is no problem with the recording. The “insurmountable technical problem” that I hear is Otto Edelmann’s clumsy and ill-tuned singing!


With this preservation of the original radio tapes, with all the original music and pauses from the performance, one can admire Furtwängler’s dramatic, powerful way with the music while at the same time being horrified at the number of cuts. Parts or all of 22 different numbers are omitted. It is true that this kind of cutting was much more common in those days than it is now, but this seems excessive even by those more relaxed standards. The performance may be “old-fashioned,” with interpretive touches that some will find inappropriate but which are applied with reverence, restraint, and taste. Tempos are on the broad side, accents and attacks are rounded rather than crisp, textures are rich rather than lean. This is a dramatic, even theatrical performance of a work that has a great deal of theater in it. And aside from Edelmann, the soloists are superb. Dermota is a much more satisfying Evangelist than the bawling Patzak, and the young Fischer-Dieskau is a wonderful Jesus. It must be noted that there is some congestion and distortion at climaxes of the chorales in this recording.


Summing up: A significant piece of music performance history of the middle 20th century is contained in this 18-disc box. Furtwängler collectors will certainly want to obtain it, and others with an interest in the history of performance practice will want it as well. In fact, any music lover willing to listen to good monaural sound from the 1940s and 1950s in order to experience one of the great conductors in recorded history will find this a gratifying collection. Orfeo provides extensive notes, in English as well as German. They are decently, if not perfectly, translated, and they tend to be somewhat over-the-top in their treatment of the conductor, but there is much good information to be had from them. It would be hard to overstate the importance of this set.

Robertino Bergamasco escribió:

Mendelssohn: Overture to Midsummer Night’s Dream; Beethoven: Violin Concerto (Menuhin, soloist; 9/28/1947). There was also a Beethoven Seventh on this concert that has not survived. Tahra has issued these two works from a performance identified as September 30 (although Rene Tremine’s Furtwängler concert listing states that this program was only given on September 28 and 29). Whatever the accuracy of Tahra’s date, this is definitely a different performance, and to my knowledge the first release ever of these performances from September 28. That was a historic occasion because it was the first concert after the war at which Yehudi Menuhin played in public in Germany with Furtwängler, which was Menuhin’s very courageous statement of support from one Jewish artist at a time when many others were shunning the conductor. (They had actually performed together in Lucerne a month earlier.) I made a direct A-B comparison between this Audite release and Tahra FURT 1020, and preferred these performances and the recorded sound. The sound here is more naturally balanced and clear, and the performances have the spontaneity one would expect from the first night in a set. Furtwängler collectors will have to have this, as it is the first “new” item in the conductor’s discography in many years.

En realidad muy interesante las reseñas... y en general coincido en sus apreciaciones. Sin embargo comete un error grueso con el Beethoven-Menuhin. Ese concierto fue editado por Fonit Cetra. Presenta los mismos ruidos de público y la fecha es la misma. Comparé ambos registros y así no más es... otra cosa es que la edición Audite es tremendamente superior.

Con respecto a que el Doble de Bahms en EMI es uno diferente al conocido, ya me parecía y así lo hice ver cuando lo reseñé.

Tampoco coincido mucho en que ls música orquestal de Wagner es ligeramente superior en esta edición Audite. La Marcha Fúnebre de Sigfrido es simplemente otra en este reprocesado si se compara con la DG.

No conozco el disco de Fonit Cetra, así que no puedo opinar. Si es un error, habrá que hacérselo ver, que Fogel es muy agradecido con las eso correcciones...   Lo que es sorprendente -en el caso del doble de Mozart- es que ORFEO sello  oficial, y competente, -aunque algún error gordo ya ha cometido (*)- no hubiese comprobado la autenticidad del registro.   

El Reyes escribió:La Marcha Fúnebre de Sigfrido es simplemente otra en este reprocesado si se compara con la DG.

Cierto es, no así el resto de Wagner -Maestros y Tristán que también estaba en DG-. Lo de la Marcha Fúnebre parece increíble.     ¡¡Ojala se conservase en esa calidad todo lo de Furtwängler!!... aunque también es cierto que la DG lleva sin remasterizar esos Wagner desde finales de los 80s, ¡¡un cuarto de siglo!!

(*) Creo que lo comenté hace años, puesto que también di el toque de alarma a los de ORFEO. Cuando sacaron DLvdE por Kletzki, esta fue la primera carátula -y que yo tengo-:



Como se puede ver el que sale en la carátula dirigiendo, con gesto bronco, no es Paul Kletzki, sino Lovro von Matacic (algunas webs siguen sin corregirlo)

Lo corrigieron rápidamente:

Robertino,

plenamente de acuerdo con lo de Wagner. El sonido de esa Marcha Fúnebre es impresionante incluso si se compara con grabaciones actuales. El resto, no posee gran diferencia.

La carátula del disco Fonit Cetra que poseo es ésta:



La fecha señalada es la del 30 de septiembre de 1947. Misma fecha señalada por Trémine en su lista de Furtwängler. Quizá la edición Tahra sea otra (no la conozco), quizá la fecha está equivocada, quizá la orquesta sea otra ¿Lucerna? (no lo creo, ya que ataca como la Filarmónica de Berlín y el registro de Lucerna lo tengo y no tiene nada que ver con esto...)

lo único que puedo asegurar es que éste es el mismo registro que Fonit Cetra. Creo que existe al menos una edición más en el mismo sello. Digo con autoridad que es la misma ya que he estado muy familiarizado con el registro y siempre me llamaba la atención el bullicio inicial que no deja oír los primeros golpes de timbal. Ese mismo bullicio se encuentra en Audite (difícil que el público haga los mismos ruidos dos días seguidos), pero se oyen por fin los timbales. La lectura es idéntica en su fraseos y dinámicas. Otro dato curioso. Éste es el registro que comentó en una oportunidad Julio Cortázar en una crónica (no recuerdo el título de la misma) Es la Filarmónica de Berlín, eso es claro, ya que Cortázar se refería a ellos como los leones berlineses.

Con respecto a los discos mal atribuidos a Furtwangler, la lista es sabrosa. Yo guardo con cariño el concierto de Grieg y una 104 de Haydn. El Haydn llegó a estar publicado en DG como gran primicia y siguió repitiendo el error Melodiya.

A ver cuando llego al Beethoven.

El Reyes escribió:Con respecto a los discos mal atribuidos a Furtwangler, la lista es sabrosa. Yo guardo con cariño el concierto de Grieg y una 104 de Haydn.

Y una Nuevo Mundo, que resulto ser de Kabasta, y un Stenka Razin que resultó ser de Borchard...

Robertino Bergamasco escribió:

Y una Nuevo Mundo, que resulto ser de Kabasta, y un Stenka Razin que resultó ser de Borchard...

¡Qué tremendo director Kabasta! Esa IX de Dvorak es impresionante, al igual que sus Bruckner, sus Schubert y su Beethoven. Kabasta es sin duda, uno de los olvidos más grandes de la historia de la dirección.

A mí siempre me ha parecido una cruza entre Furtwängler, Golovanov y Scherchen. El resultado, pura y sublime visceralidad.

Personalmente no comparto ese entusiasmo por Kabasta. Nada de lo que le he escuchado me ha gustado -Dvorak, Beethoven, Bruckner- más bien todo lo contrario.
Compararlo con Furtwängler, no se yo...  

El Reyes escribió:uno de los olvidos más grandes de la historia de la dirección.

Me imagino que su incondicionalidad al régimen, sobretodo a Kabasta, les ha pasado factura. ¿Quién se acuerda de Hans von Benda, Helmuth Thierfelder, Hermann Stange, Peter Raabe, Leopold Reichwein...?

Robertino Bergamasco escribió:Personalmente no comparto ese entusiasmo por Kabasta. Nada de lo que le he escuchado me ha gustado -Dvorak, Beethoven, Bruckner- más bien todo lo contrario.
Compararlo con Furtwängler, no se yo...  

El Reyes escribió:uno de los olvidos más grandes de la historia de la dirección.

Me imagino que su incondicionalidad al régimen, sobretodo a Kabasta, les ha pasado factura. ¿Quién se acuerda de Hans von Benda, Helmuth Thierfelder, Hermann Stange, Peter Raabe, Leopold Reichwein...?

Robertino,

creo que su olvido no pasa por su condición de nazi. De otro modo, nadie se acordaría ni de Karajan, ni de Furtwängler, ni de Böhm, ni de Kna... más bien pasa por su escasa discografía y sus modos directoriales pasados de la raya en cuanto a intensidad, bestialidad y neurosis... pero a mí eso es lo que me gusta... y mucho.

Lamentablemente, Kabasta se suicidó el 46.

Lo comparo con Furtwängler porque es lógico hacerlo, no por nada su IX de Dvorak se le atribuía a Furtwängler y nadie se extrañaba, ya que el estilo estaba en sintonía con don Wilhelm. Es más, me parece que es la única confusión que le hace mérito a Furtwängler, ya que las otras, claramente están por debajo del arte de este gran director.

Otra cosa es que Kabasta no posea la trascendencia de Furtwängler, eso es evidente, pero sus registros sí son al menos- de gran interés.

Me consta que en Japón, existe su legión de admiradores. No soy japonés, pero doy mi voto a Kabasta, a quien sitúo sin dudarlo entre los 10 más grandes de la historia.

Mi track elegido es el scherzo de la IX de Bruckner. Simplemente bestial en todos los sentidos de la expresión.

Tomen miedo, mortales.

El Reyes escribió:Robertino,

creo que su olvido no pasa por su condición de nazi. De otro modo, nadie se acordaría ni de Karajan, ni de Furtwängler, ni de Böhm, ni de Kna... más bien pasa por su escasa discografía y sus modos directoriales pasados de la ralla en cuanto a intensidad, bestialidad y neurosis... pero a mí eso es lo que me gusta... y mucho.

Kna y Furtwängler no estaban afiliados al partido nazi, y de hecho chocaron con el régimen en varias ocasiones. Böhm no estaba afiliado al partido nazi, pero era simpatizante. Karajan si estaba afiliado al partido. Parece que los llamas a todos nazis por no exiliarse.
Kabasta no es que solamente fuera simpatizante nazi, es que había participado en la deportación de músicos judíos, por eso le abrieron un proceso y prefirió envenenarse. El estar implicado en el Holocausto son palabras mayores, no es que solamente fuera simpatizante o miembro del partido, de los nombres que citas, a ninguno se le implicó en nada parecido.

El Reyes escribió:Lo comparo con Furtwängler porque es lógico hacerlo, no por nada su IX de Dvorak se le atribuía a Furtwängler y nadie se extrañaba, ya que el estilo estaba en sintonía con don Wilhelm. Es más, me parece que es la única confusión que le hace mérito a Furtwängler, ya que las otras, claramente están por debajo del arte de este gran director.

... yo ya la conocí como de Kabasta. A mi me suena muy basta para recordar a Furtwängler, que tampoco este es que fuera el colmo del refinamiento sobretodo en la época de guerra. No recuerdo nada de Furtwängler ahora mismo, parecido a eso.

El Reyes escribió:Mi track elegido es el scherzo de la IX de Bruckner. Simplemente bestial en todos los sentidos de la expresión.

Tomen miedo, mortales.

... y a mi que me parece cómico. De lo que no cabe duda es que Kabasta tiene el record de velocidad en Bruckner. En ese estilo acelerado, prefiero a Andreae o Schuricht, mucho más idiomáticos.

El subrayado es mío

De http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/kabasta.html

And Oswald too (por Peter Gutmann)

El Reyes escribió:nadie es perfecto... Kabasta tampoco... y quizá es más canallesca esa cosa asopada y solapada a la Böhm... en todo caso, quizá yo habría sido peor en esas circunstancias. Lo malo -o lo bueno- es que no soy director de orquesta. Además, los árboles pueden ser mejores que sus frutos.

... lo musical -si eso existiera en estado incontaminado- es lo importante... y en eso podemos opinar de modo muy distinto, pero quiero dejar en claro que mi gusto por Kabasta tiene base.

Leyendo esto, me viene a la cabeza la manida frase de Ortega: Yo soy yo, y mi circunstancia. Pues eso, Kabasta es él, y su circunstancia, indivisibles, inevitables.

El Reyes escribió:Por cierto esa IX de Bruckner se ha comparado con la de Furtwängler y no he sido yo quien lo ha hecho. De modo que no es mero capricho personal, sino -y lo digo sin ironía-, probablemente, mal gusto compartido, pero es irresistible:

Después de años escuchándolas, no he hallado ningún paralelismo -salvo el que son las mismas notas- entre esto que pones:



... y esto:



Aunque tampoco Gutmann lo aclara... que por cierto, o yo me estoy oxidando con el inglés, o está datando mal la única Novena de Bruckner por Furtwängler.

Robertino,

para variar, datan mal esa IX de Bruckner...

a riesgo de ser majadero. Encontré otra reseña - de otro probable sordo- en que se establece una relación entre Kabasta y FurtwÄngler, no en el sentido de que uno sea mejor que otro, sino en el que un admirador de Furtwängler sabrá apreciar a Kabasta. Es en este sentido me atrevo a comparar a Kabasta con Furtwängler.

1943/44 Broadcasts (Raymond Tuttle) enhttp://www.classical.net/~music/recs/reviews/m/m&a01072a.php

El Reyes escribió:no en el sentido de que uno sea mejor que otro, sino en el que un admirador de Furtwängler sabrá apreciar a Kabasta.

No sabía que fuese norma sine qua non, ahora ya no basta sólo con su discografía, sino que hay que saber también apreciar a fulanito, o menganito. Debí saltarme esa lección en su día.  
... esto ya es como lo de Boulez, cuestión de fe. O se tiene, o no se tiene.

Robertino Bergamasco escribió:

... esto ya es como lo de Boulez, cuestión de fe. O se tiene, o no se tiene.

Plenamente de acuerdo, Robertino... ¿y quien dijo que la fe no revela la verdad? También tengo fe en Giulini y en Furtwängler, pero como es una fe más universal, entonces nadie la discute.

Si solamente fuera yo el que posee fe, entonces estoy loco. Si somos más existen tres posibilidades: o es neurosis colectiva, o es un índice de intersubjetividad (por lo tanto con un grado de certeza) o una mezcla de ambas posibilidades. Como no soy el único (críticos mediante) en le fe de Kabasta, es probable que comparta esa neurosis colectiva por su figura artística, pero dada mi condición escéptica por naturaleza, más bien me inclino por haber encontrado un grado de autenticidad y de verdad en sus lecturas (erróneas o no) que ameritan no crucificarlo como un artista que hace cosas cómicas o simplemente descabelladas.

Por cierto, también tengo fe en Sinopoli, un genio... y en Haitink... y eso en este foro equivale a ser mártir por la fe.

A Abbado no le tengo fe, pero su Titán con Berlín es excelente. Curiosamente a Karajan no le tengo fe, pero a cada rato me sorprende. Lo mismo me pasa con Boulez. Eso sí es índice de calidad.

Kabasta es para quienes tienen fe en él... puede ser. Esa brutalidad, visceralidad y riesgo de sus lecturas a mi me convencen. Por eso lo comparo con Golovanov. Posee ese sentido alucinado que veo en Furtwängler y lo descabellado, pero genial de Scherchen. Me parece que la comparación -con todo lo antojadiza que es- que hago es válida... pero hay que tenerle fe a Kabasta... o quizá solamente detenerse con buena conciencia a oír lo que realmente quiere decirnos.

El Reyes escribió:¿y quien dijo que la fe no revela la verdad?

Yo es que como carezco de ella, no puedo darle esa cualidad. Soy demasiado simple, yo si no lo veo, no lo creo... en este caso, sino lo escucho, no lo creo.

El Reyes escribió:Kabasta es para quienes tienen fe en él... puede ser.

Mal vamos. Eso me recuerda a una frase con respecto a otro "director" de orquesta, que me dijo un crítico nacional hace ya unos cuantos años: Apreciar a X no es cuestión de saber más o menos de música, es cuestión de fe. Ante eso, yo no puedo discutir.

El Reyes escribió:Kabasta es para quienes tienen fe en él... puede ser. Esa brutalidad, visceralidad y riesgo de sus lecturas a mi me convencen.(...) pero hay que tenerle fe a Kabasta... o quizá solamente detenerse con buena conciencia a oír lo que realmente quiere decirnos.

Me imagino que es la cualidad de la fe... pero lo ignoro. ¿los que la tenéis, estáis seguros de que eso era lo que quería transmitir Kabasta?  

Robertino Bergamasco escribió:

Me imagino que es la cualidad de la fe... pero lo ignoro. ¿los que la tenéis,  estáis seguros de que eso era lo que quería transmitir Kabasta?  

¡Qué va, Robertino!

La fe nos dice que dice algo importante, pero de ahí saber exactamente qué es, ni idea. Para mí, quizá Kabasta suena a brutalidad pagana nazi, a primitivismo inhumano cruel y lo hace con una verdad tan física que se vuelve irresistible... pero obviamente no es eso. Es música, dicha con fiereza, en eso puede haber cierto acuerdo.

Ha fallecido René Trémine, uno de los mayores expertos en Furtwängler, y el fundador del sello Tahra...

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippeddisc/2014/02/classical-label-founder-dies-aged-69.html

Robertino,

Una gran pérdida,

no lo conocí en persona, pero sí tuvimos intercambio epistolar durante años, ya que colaboré de modo modesto con él en su libro sobre Scherchen, entregando información sobre Scherchen en América Latina (no sé si ha publicado) y en una investigación sobre Paray. Encantadora persona.

Seguirá siendo uno de los faros en el desordenado océano de la discografía de Furtwängler.

Soy también un gran admirador del arte directorial de Furtwangler, por lo que me gustaría felicitar a El Reyes, Robertino y todos aquellos q ya han aportado información e irán aportando más luz en torno a su discografía.

Por mi parte no tengo mucho que aportar pero me surge una duda. En su integral de sinfonías de Brahms de Music & Arts se aportaba información en el libreto suministrado sobre las otras grabaciones de sinfonías brahmsianas dirigidas por Furtwangler de las que se tenía constancia. Me pareció curioso leer sobre, creo, una Tercera de Brahms con la Filarmónica de Berlín grabada en Egipto, la cual hasta el momento permanecía en manos privadas por lo cual entiendo nunca ha visto la luz de cara al público. Creo era una grabación de tiempos de guerra, imagino que un concierto dirigido especialmente a las tropas y demás personal militar que debía encontrarse por las razones que fuera en esas tierras. A ese respecto, ¿alguien podría echar algo más de luz sobre esta grabación en particular y/o en general sobre las grabaciones disponibles de Furtwangler realizadas fuera del territorio europeo?

Gracias por adelantado y un saludo.

Tur,

efectivamente, existe esa 3 y fue editada en CD por la sociedad Furtwängler... yo no la tengo, pero un amigo pertenece a dicha sociedad, la cual por una cuota -anual, me parece- hace llegar registros a sus suscriptores en condiciones sonoras "óptimas".

La 3 es del 19 o 25 de abril de 1951 en El Cairo o Alexandria.

http://fischer.hosting.paran.com/music/Furtwangler/furtwangler-discography-2.htm#No.3

No creo que haya sido por asunto de tropas... Furtwängler y Egipto tenían una relación desde la niñez. El padre del director fue el gran egiptólogo y arqueólogo Adolf Furtwängler.

Fuera de Europa conozco sus registros en Buenos Aires y Venezuela (¡pedazo de Primera de Brahms!).