robertwhite

Topic split from "NY Philharmonic Audition" thread:
It's Charles Brady playing on "L'Histoire" (with LA musicians), Nagel and Weis on the Octet (in NY), which is where the picture comes from. Don't have the notes in front of me, but that's what I remember reading.

Anyway, about Eric's point -
Brady was 22 when he made this recording, and according to Tom Stevens (you can find the story on his website) had an hour-long, one-on-one session with Stravinsky about the cornet part alone.

To my knowledge, no other L'Histoire recording has been made with as much "first person" input by the composer. Indeed, that was the intent of all the Columbia series recordings with Stravinsky conducting. The fact that he sometimes conducted tempi different from the scores' indications, or even when he revisited a work which he recorded earlier, doesn't change the importance of checking these documents out and appreciating the truth they contain.

No one can stop someone from "interpreting" things their own way, but it becomes rather difficult to justify when the composer has basically said "this is how it goes". Individual players can lend distinctive beauty to something already done, but is that "interpretation"? How do you determine what's "being flexible" and what's distortion?

rowuk

The beauty of music is that the interpretation NEVER stops.
The ugliness of the Nintendo Generation is that they are always looking for a shortcut or cheat to download just so they can "get through". Can you then be proud of a job well done - or does that just let you brag about having gotten through??????????

The ink is all that is required. Those are the notes published. The expression is the synergy between the conductor, the orchestra and the player. There will (should) never be agreement on expression. That is what makes the pieces come alive. Assuming adequate research and musical intelligence, nothing can go WRONG, other players may just not be in agreement. I am greatful that Toscanini, Böhm and Rattle have minds of their own!

Most of my encounters with composers has been in states of constant revision. Even they respond to positive MUSICAL input!

ebtromba

I have never heard the recording in question, I am sure it is great. I am not trying to play a sophomore-ish game of “GOTCHA!!!” with a long dead composer --- “Listen to this recording of him conducting….and then this one…and now look at the tempo in the score…the 3 tempos are all different!! GOTCHA!!!!!” That is pretty stupid. obviously there are a million things that can dictate a live show..acoustics of the space plays a huge part in tempo for example.

Wagner was constantly on Mahler’s @ss when Mahler was conducting Wagner’s music. Mahler was a very fine conductor and obviously had great musical instincts but he just heard things differently than Wagner did, and since Wagner had not been infinitely clear in the score, Mahler got yelled at, and more than a couple times. So when Mahler starts to write he includes very detailed instructions on how to play his music. And yet with all this “prose” written into the editions we read off of today, no Mahler performance sounds the same. But isn’t that the whole point? I mean would anyone here go to a concert if they knew exactly how it was going to sound?

I have heard that Stravinski said something along the lines of, “you do not need to interpret my music.” Someone explain this to me.

And ultimately, as trumpet players and not conductors, much of the time we simply do as we’re told, whether it is exactly, positively, without a doubt what the composer wanted, or it is the craziest thing anyone has ever heard. This is only if we want to keep playing where we’re playing, however.

Johntpt

Yes, Stravinsky's recordings are important documents for all of us to study. The problem is that by the 1960s he was a rather old man (in 1962 he turned 80) and not always in complete command anymore. When he went to guest conduct orchestras, Bob Craft almost always went along to prepare the orchestra. Craft had worked closely with Stravinsky since the late 1940s and knew exactly how to prepare the orchestra to the composer's liking. Stravinsky would only conduct the dress rehearsal and concert, in fact Craft often conducted the first half of the concert if Igor didn't feel up to it.

There is a great DVD from VAI called "Stravinsky" out there that gives you a good idea of what Stravinsky's late recording sessions were like. Here he's shown recording Symphony of Psalms with the CBC Symphony of Toronto around 1965. Craft is in the control room, and between him and the record producer, they pretty much control the recording, deciding which passages need retakes, even going so far as to correct his tempos, advice which the composer seems happy to accept. After watching this it's hard to call that recording a definitive account from the composer, with so many interpretive decisions made by other people.

Having said that, I enjoy watching him conduct the Firebird Suite 1945 on an EMI DVD. This performance with the New Philharmonia of London, also from 1965, shows Stravinsky as a fine interpreter of his piece with clear and communicative conducting.

In terms of L'Histoire, I've always enjoyed his 1954 recording with Bob Nagel playing trumpet. The liner notes have a nice photo of Stravinsky and Nagel chatting about the piece at a break in the sessions.

JU