robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/05/84)
Part of the trouble with R. Strauss is that he is getting over-interpreted. I listened to ana analysis of a new Rosenkavalier recording last night. The point of the commentators was that Strauss used to conduct his own performances so simply that the opera sounded startlingly like Mozart. People have lost the simplicity of his music in trying to make it more than it is, and in doing so they have made it less, by losing the beautiful construction that allowed his music to sound clear and simple. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
asente@Cascade.ARPA (11/08/84)
> The point of the commentators was that Strauss > used to conduct his own performances so simply that the opera sounded > startlingly like Mozart. People have lost the simplicity of his music > in trying to make it more than it is, and in doing so they have made it > less, by losing the beautiful construction that allowed his music to > sound clear and simple. Well, maybe some of it, but there are all sorts of interesting stories about his conducting of "Salome." In some cases he told the orchestra, "play louder, I can still hear the singers!" He described the effect he wanted as a "wall of sound." My favorite story concerned a clarinetist. Ricky (all his friends call him Ricky) told the clarinetist he was playing too loud. He played more softly. Still too loud. Finally he just mouthed the mouthpiece and fingered the keys without blowing at all. The response? "Just a little softer and it'll be perfect." -paul asente "Ich habe deine muss gekussen." (No spelling flames, please)
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (11/08/84)
I have to argue with Toby Robison's comments on R. Strauss'
music and its simplicity. A brief look at the complex scoring
of Rosenkavalier tells me that no matter how you interpret it
it's not going to sound anything like Mozart. This applies
particularly to the prelude of the first act and the majority
of the third act.
It is possible for faulty interpretation to conceal the
good qualities of a work. Several years ago, I found the
Colin Davis interpretation of Mozart's "Clemenza Di Tito"
a revelation in that it, for the first time in my experience,
displayed an expanded scope and grandeur. However, I don't
find this plausible as an explanation for what I've consistently
heard as an emptiness in Strauss' music. For one thing, I
don't find this in all of Strauss' music but rather an
increasing phenomenon as he got older.
The best way to judge is to compare the performance with the
score. If tempo directions are being fussed with, dynamics
manipulated in a way NOT specified in the score, and balances
distorted, then one might say that a lack of simplicity
(among other charges) is inhibiting the effectiveness of the
writing.
I have heard, on records an in the opera house, a number
of performances of "Rosenkavalier" which did damage the
work by exaggerations, or technical inability. I have
also heard straightforward performances. In the latter,
the "empty" parts of the score still sounded such and those
parts which were beautiful and expressive also sounded so.
The only part of the opera I personally hear as original
and interesting is the lovely "mir ist die Ehe" and onward
(Octavian's arrival in Act 2 and the subsequent duet with
Sophie). Other than that, the music is supplying background
to the text without adding eloquence or expanding on it as
opera should do. The worst example is the final trio, where
I feel Strauss fell far short of a terrific dramatic
situation. Rather than something new and powerful to
underline the confrontation, he spins out endless repeats
of the "nein, nein, ich trink kein Wein" melody sung by
'Mariandel' in the tavern with Ochs. Sending the voices
higher and higher till they arrive on the high B natural
(Sophie and Marschallin, that is) doesn't make up for what
he's failed to do in providing music of a substance to
match the text.
This sort of thing gets progressively worse as one listens
on (if one has the patience) through "Frau Ohne Schatten",
"Arabella", "Capriccio" etc. etc. Nowhere is there the
life and boldness of the best of his earlier tone poems
("Till Eulenspiel", "Don Juan", "Don Quixote" rather than
the pompous, inflated "Zarathustra" and "Heldenleben")
and the best parts of "Salome". The skill and craftsmanship
are always there, but the inner fire has been quenched.
- Greg Paleydoug@cornell.UUCP (Douglas Campbell) (11/11/84)
In <245@olivej.UUCP>, greg@olivej.UUCP writes: > It is possible for faulty interpretation to conceal the > good qualities of a work. . . . However, I don't > find this plausible as an explanation for what I've consistently > heard as an emptiness in Strauss' music. > > . . . > > This sort of thing gets progressively worse as one listens > on (if one has the patience) through "Frau Ohne Schatten", > "Arabella", "Capriccio" etc. etc. Nowhere is there the > life and boldness of the best of his earlier tone poems > ("Till Eulenspiel", "Don Juan", "Don Quixote" rather than > the pompous, inflated "Zarathustra" and "Heldenleben") > and the best parts of "Salome". The skill and craftsmanship > are always there, but the inner fire has been quenched. I'm surprised that "Zarathustra" is characterized as 'pompus' and 'inflated'. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, and mine is that "Zarathustra" is a deep, searching, very moving work, if a bit forceful. As an example of an excellent performance, try Karajan's 1973 performance with the Berlin Philharmonic. To me, this performance is one of the two or three finest recordings I have ever heard. I frankly find "Don Juan" a bit shallow in terms of emotional depth and pull. Ever a romantic, Doug Campbell doug@cornell.{ARPA|UUCP}