极品人生
标题: 20世纪有哪些指挥大师从来不演出马勒或者极少演出马勒？ [打印本页]
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-9 10:39
标题: 20世纪有哪些指挥大师从来不演出马勒或者极少演出马勒？
本帖最后由 LJBI4 于 2013-5-9 11:50 编辑
最近发现有很多德奥指挥大师几乎从不指挥马勒，我说几个：伯姆；切利；克莱门斯克劳斯；克钠佩茨布施；约胡姆；旺德；凯尔伯特，还有像20世纪前半叶两大指挥巨擘托斯卡尼尼和富特文革勒似乎也很少指挥马勒，而指挥帝王卡拉扬也只是较少的指挥了几首马勒交响曲（至少相对于其指挥其它德奥作曲家的作品），不知是什么原因啊？巧合的是上述的这些大师却都是马勒同时代的布鲁克钠和理查斯特劳斯的权威阐释者或布道者，大家讨论讨论啊。
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-9 13:07
本帖最后由 scfan 于 2013-5-9 13:31 编辑
托斯卡尼尼就是把马勒赶出美国的始作俑者，他怎么可能指挥马勒？不要说马勒，他连布鲁克纳都不碰，因为布鲁克纳是马勒的老师。。。当然他口头不承认，说他不指挥不能理解的音乐。
富特有很多马勒的现场音乐会，只是不知为何没留下录音，即便留下，估计也不大入耳。理由见下。
先说个新人，蒂勒曼，从风格上他应该算富特和克纳的综合体，以前我一直以为他也和这帮子老头子一样不喜欢马勒，其实他在欧洲一直有马勒的音乐会上演，只不过没有录音发行罢了。听过他马勒现场的唯正说，这风格的确不适合马勒。我想其他那些德奥大师们也是如此吧。蒂勒曼在那套贝多芬全集的解说谈话里多次提及不能照搬贝多芬乐谱标记的速度来演绎，有时候他把速度拉得比乐谱慢好多倍。好在贝多芬的弹性极大，拉开了仍然有张力，同样布鲁克纳也是可以拉的。但马勒不行，他的乐谱严格定义了一切，不留给指挥太多的空间，传统意义上的德奥专家们反而找不到北了。
这里就要表扬一下复合型人才卡拉扬了，一开始他没把马勒当回事，结果被伯恩斯坦踩了主场，差点引起柏林爱乐哗变，羡慕嫉妒恨之下，终于开始钻营马勒。（也有讲法是他早年觉得马勒的作品要求太高，他要储蓄能量，留待以后再演，我觉得是在扯淡）不过在录制了5、6、大地之歌、亡儿之歌、吕克特之歌、4、9之后，他已无力或者不敢完成马勒全集的录音。他的原话记不清了，大意是弄马勒太伤，精神压力太重，负能量太大。其中马勒第九卡拉扬有三次录音，1979年的录音室录音、1982年5月1日柏林爱乐大厅现场（非正规盘）、1982年9月30日柏林爱乐大厅现场（大名鼎鼎的金卡马九）。82年9月30日的现场马九已足够体现卡拉扬对马勒理解的高度，我个人认为是最顶级的演绎之一。不过据说他自己觉得最棒的一次马勒是当年5月1日当晚演出前上午的彩排，据说老卡排演完后悲伤地对爱乐的团员们说到，我们以后再也不会有这样精彩的演出了。当晚的演出比较平淡，从录音里可以听得出来。82年应该是卡拉扬密集演出和录音马勒第九的年份，当年的萨尔斯堡音乐节上老卡也演出了此曲目，演出后他取消了预订的晚餐，因为入戏太深，已毫无胃口。82年以后他就再也不敢碰马勒了。这一点上，俺觉得卡拉扬是超越了德奥的。
另外两位超越了德奥的大师不得不提，瓦尔特和克伦佩勒，他们的马勒和布鲁克纳一样精彩！他们两位和卡拉扬是如何做到鱼与熊掌兼得，对我来说是个谜。不过瓦尔特是马勒的学生兼朋友，克伦佩勒是马勒的助理兼朋友，这对于他们深入理解马勒无疑有巨大的帮助。
其实托斯卡尼尼不弄马勒真的可惜，最了解自己的往往不是自己，而是敌人。马勒，真正懂你的人就是托斯卡尼尼么？
切利算不得德奥大师，他的法兰西音乐和东欧音乐还不错，德奥的东西真心弄不来，神形皆无。其实他倒是可以弄弄马勒的，偏偏他当自己是正统德奥的传人，学人样，不屑于马勒。
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-9 15:03
俺觉得卡拉扬是超越了德奥的••••••...
scfan 发表于 2013-5-9 13:07 
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-9 23:11
LJBI4 发表于 6 小时前
记得李格的回忆录上说道有次他问克伦配勒，你是否觉得马勒是比布鲁克纳更优秀的作曲家，克伦说，当然不是，李格又问那为什你如此地推广马勒的作品呢？答曰：因为我的第一份工作是马勒介绍的，就这么简单。
-------------------------
我觉得这在音乐圈是个共识，记得有年好像是LSO到上海演出，主办方要求把布鲁克纳换成马勒，对方表示强烈不满，我们是可以演布鲁克纳的团，为啥要我们演马勒？
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-10 09:32
本帖最后由 Jwang 于 2013-5-10 09:36 编辑
这是很好的题目。我以前也曾经自问过,为什么富特在市面上发行的只有一个马勒的作品,是不是他只指挥了一个马勒作品?后来调查一番,发现实际并不是如此。下面是富特指挥过的马勒的作品。
1912, Kindertotenlieder.
1915，钢琴伴奏马勒艺术歌曲。
1916, Das Lied von der Erde。
1918，Fahrenden cycle.
1919，第四交响乐。第三交响乐。
1920，第二和第三交响乐。
1921，第一和第二交响乐。
1922，Kindertotenlieder
1923，第五交响乐,the Fahrenden cycle和其他艺术歌曲。
1924: 第三交响乐。一次在Leipzig, 一次在Vienna, 两次在柏林。
1925: 第一交响乐在Leipzig一次 和柏林二次。
1929: 第一交响乐。总共五次,分别在Leipzig, Berlin ，Vienna。
1930: 两次在柏林演出艺术歌曲。
1932: 第四交响乐。一次在汉堡。二次在柏林。
纳粹上台,马勒作品被禁演。
战后,总共八次。
1953， 五次Fahrenden 及三次Kindertotenlider
富特在战后没有指挥马勒交响乐,原因可能是无从考证了。
很多德奥大师不指挥马勒,这表明一种姿态。我不愿用反犹倾向来讲,因为这种讲法政治意味太强。我认为这是种对马勒的评价。虽然人们嘴上不讲,但我认为根深蒂固传统的德奥学派是轻视或认为马勒是非德奥的。就象伯恩斯坦只指挥了Tristan Und Isolde和瓦格纳的某些序曲一样是表明了一种姿态。马勒得以普及,特别是六七年代,是和伯恩斯坦(美国)和Barbirolli(英国)的大力推倡分不开。卡拉扬在他最后的音乐会上演出了瓦格纳和马勒的作品,并由黑人Jessye Norman来唱。至于切利,我认为切利可能更是从宗教的角度来表达对马勒的姿态的。(这点只是我的猜想,有待进一步研究)。
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-10 13:34
J版说得在理，我原来也一直觉得富特在纳粹上台前演出不少马勒作品，而后来纳粹禁演后主要是政治原因，但战后其复出后应该在政治上没有了障碍，但是他也没有再上演马勒交响曲，其中原因应该是其内心本身就不喜欢或看不上马勒的作品。
至于战后马勒作品的普及和腾飞主要是犹太音乐家的大力推崇，但是我觉得最重要的应该是瓦尔特和克伦配勒，然后才是伯恩斯坦和巴比罗利。还有就是马勒作品在战后的流行和原先最受欢迎的德奥浪漫主义作品（比如瓦格纳和理查斯特劳斯的作品）和纳粹扯上关系而被压制也有很大的关系。
至于传统德奥大师对马勒的态度，我们可以从伯姆的回忆录中初窥端倪，伯姆在整篇回忆录中提到马勒都是说在当时的德奥地区马勒是一位出色的指挥家，并且其已没有现场看过马勒的指挥而感到惋惜，但是从来没有提到马勒的作品。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-10 22:29
本帖最后由 桂猪 于 2013-5-10 22:34 编辑
楼主提的那七人，指挥马勒的占了大半。功课没做好。
近60年前瓦尔特就说过指挥马勒的不少了，楼主为什么就是不信呢？阅历丰富的老人家不会乱说话的话我会乱说？叹息呵呵。
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-10 23:32
楼主提的那七人，指挥马勒的占了大半。功课没做好。
近60年前瓦尔特就说过指挥马勒的不少了，楼主为什么就 ...
桂猪 发表于 2013-5-10 22:29
即便这些大师曾经极少的指挥过马勒，但是就唱片录音中，这些7位大师几乎没有留下任何马勒交响曲录音，但他们留下的录音总量却是惊人的，这难道还不能说明问题。。。呵呵
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 00:20
回复 LJBI4 的帖子
我说的占了大半就是说他们有马勒的录音。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 00:28
其实多少也不总是能说明问题。一个曲目录音多能说明指挥家的重视和喜爱，反之则未必，举例来说，瓦尔特如此钟爱马太受难曲、庄严弥撒、布鲁克纳第五、费德里奥，录音却反映不出来。录音清单是会遮蔽一些东西的。
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-11 01:11
瓦尔特晚年没录过一出歌剧——我没记错的话，战后根本就没指挥过歌剧——实在是太遗憾了。
作者: bodyheat 时间: 2013-5-11 01:55
回复
我说的占了大半就是说他们有马勒的录音。
桂猪 发表于 2013-5-11 00:20
没错。事实上，马勒的联篇歌曲一开始就获得了音乐界较为一致的认可，因此那几部作品被老大师们演录得也比较多。争议性主要是集中体现在他那些交响曲上。
作者: bodyheat 时间: 2013-5-11 02:06
本帖最后由 bodyheat 于 2013-5-11 02:23 编辑
毕勤、蒙都、莱纳、克莱伯父子这都是20世纪指挥台上响当当的人物，他们对马老师也都不感冒。
这里头，蒙都最有意思。他当年还是马勒到巴黎首演时的指挥助理，而他既不喜欢马勒的作品也不喜欢马勒本人，不过他晚年的门生大卫.金曼却对马勒作品很痴迷。按蒙都的说法，后来的所有指挥家中各方面气质和工作状态最象马勒的人是塞尔，但塞尔实际上对马勒交响曲的态度也远谈不上热衷，而且好像后世在管弦乐编配上唯一敢冲马老师直接叫板的还就是塞尔。
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-11 02:13
回复
我说的占了大半就是说他们有马勒的录音。
桂猪 发表于 2013-5-11 00:20
我前面回复中说得是马勒交响曲录音，不是他那些声乐套曲。这些大师绝对没有录过马勒的任何一部交响曲。我的原本的意思并不是要争论这些细节问题，都有资料可查。
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-11 02:15
其实多少也不总是能说明问题。一个曲目录音多能说明指挥家的重视和喜爱，反之则未必，举例来说，瓦尔特如此 ...
桂猪 发表于 2013-5-11 00:28
哪您的观点到底是什么呢？
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-11 02:25
毕勤、蒙都、莱纳、克莱伯父子这都是20世纪指挥台上响当当的人物，他们对马老师也都不感冒。这里头，蒙都最 ...
bodyheat 发表于 2013-5-11 02:06 
我还感觉到其实这些对马勒不太感冒的大师中，很多都是理查斯特劳斯的推崇者，好像对马勒和理查都花了很多心思的人太少了，貌似只有门盖尔贝格，卡拉扬也只能勉强算一个了。
作者: bodyheat 时间: 2013-5-11 02:34
我还感觉到其实这些对马勒不太感冒的大师中，很多都是理查斯特劳斯的推崇者，好像对马勒和理查都花了很多 ...
LJBI4 发表于 2013-5-11 02:25
你的观察是对的。海庭克应该算在二者造诣上比较均衡的一位，但他算比较后辈儿了。卡拉扬俺脚着不能算，他就6和9市场反响还可以。
作者: bodyheat 时间: 2013-5-11 02:45
本帖最后由 bodyheat 于 2013-5-11 02:47 编辑
我还感觉到其实这些对马勒不太感冒的大师中，很多都是理查斯特劳斯的推崇者，好像对马勒和理查都花了很多 ...
LJBI4 发表于 2013-5-11 02:25
所以，你现在该理解为啥马老师当年跟家恨恨地冲自己媳妇儿撩下那句壮怀激烈的豪言——
“......，我的时代终将来临！”了吧？
而那前半句恰是“他（理查.斯特劳斯）的时代终将过去，”。
~~~这都是让他们给逼的啊
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-11 02:55
[quote]你的观察是对的。海庭克应该算在二者造诣上比较均衡的一位，但他算比较后辈儿了。卡拉扬俺脚着不能算， ...
bodyheat 发表于 2013-5-11 02:34 [/quote
确实是啊，突然想起海庭克和门盖尔贝格都是荷兰人，而且都是皇家音乐厅管弦乐团的两代当家指挥，看来还是有传承的因素啊。。。
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-11 03:33
在这七人当中，Krauss和Bohm都是只是指挥了马的艺术歌曲，Knappertsbusch好象指挥了第五。不知道Keilberth指挥了什么。
我认为还是可以看出一定的趋势来的。至于这后面是什么原因，哪又当别论。这需l了解大量的文献。这也不是一个贴子可以完成的。不过有点是可以肯定的。德意志文化中反犹是有其历史的。瓦格纳的歌剧就是这这种现象的反映。当然，在实际中，这种现象又会在不同的社会阶层做表现为不同强烈程度的看法。但就象我上面讲的，我用姿态一词就是用比较温和的语调来表达这个观点。
尽管马勒对自己的犹太血统耿耿于怀，他也从犹太教转化我天主教。希特勒也曾出席他指挥的瓦格纳的Lohengrin，但他生前也因为他的犹太背景而被攻击。难道当今这种反犹，或者讲某种姿态就不存在？很难令人相信。但是如何在这种姿态和德奥大师指挥很少或不指挥马勒的作品搭上桥不是个轻而易举的课题。这也超出了一个网上贴子的可能完成的题目。
单就这个题目引起大家思考这个客观存在的现象，这个贴子的目的也达到了。
作者: bodyheat 时间: 2013-5-11 04:36
本帖最后由 bodyheat 于 2013-5-11 04:38 编辑
在这七人当中，Krauss和Bohm都是只是指挥了马的艺术歌曲，Knappertsbusch好象指挥了第五。不知道Keilberth指 ...
Jwang 发表于 2013-5-11 03:33
俺个人决不认为“反犹”是这个议题下的主因，否则当初马老师那些声乐套曲也应该与他那些交响曲同样命运才对，事实显然不是那样的。那么焦点主要还是应集中在对其交响曲作品的艺术价值判断上。况且，这个标题显然也不应局限于德奥系，“20世纪指挥大师”又不是只出在德奥系，有些对马勒交响曲持谨慎态度的老大师本人就是犹太裔，那又怎么说呢？
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 10:29
回复 LJBI4 的帖子
你的资料就没告诉你凯尔伯特有马交录音？
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-11 10:37
俺个人决不认为“反犹”是这个议题下的主因，否则当初马老师那些声乐套曲也应该与他那些交响曲同样命运 ...
bodyheat 发表于 2013-5-11 04:36
你这个讲法有道理。我上面的只是猜测。
作者: blueelf 时间: 2013-5-11 10:44
本帖最后由 blueelf 于 2013-5-11 10:45 编辑
回复 Rozinante 的帖子
有现场录音，56年在大都会的《魔笛》。
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Walhall/WLCD0181
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 10:45
这个论题本来就不妥。那多少人有很多巴赫的录音？于是巴赫就不重要了？楼主问我的观点是什么，我前面说清楚了吧？录音多能说明问题，录音少则不见得能说明问题，内中要廓清分辨的因素太多了。犹太作曲家也不止马勒一个大家不还是指挥么？即便就是不指马勒，就没曲意不好捕捉，注释莫名其妙的原因？非在犹太、艺术价值上打转才称意么？
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-11 10:58
哲学家的路数就是透过现象看本质，如今这个议题渐入妙境了。有意思！
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-11 10:59
巴赫在世时他还没他两个儿子风光呢，同时代的音乐家轻视同辈作曲家不是件稀罕事。和马勒同为顶级指挥，这些老克勒们没有理由热捧马勒这个作曲家。看看富特谱的交响曲现在什么地位？
作者: LJBI4 时间: 2013-5-11 11:17
本帖最后由 LJBI4 于 2013-5-11 11:19 编辑
回复桂猪兄：
这个论题有何不妥，你还是没说到点子上，我的论题中并没有说马勒是否像巴赫一样重要或不重要，至于马勒在音乐史上的地位自有公论，也不是我们几个爱乐者就能改变的。还有我这个帖子里并没有涉及反犹话题，希望你别往上多联想。讨论一个音乐家的艺术价值和其反应在各各历史时期繁荣兴衰，本就是乐迷们茶余饭后最长聊的话题，不妥在何处？马勒的音乐一直以来就充满争议，即便现在也是如此，就有些乐迷不喜欢马勒也没什么奇怪，连贝多芬，巴赫都有人不喜欢，更不要说区区马勒了。录音多能说明问题录音少则不能说明问题，有一定道理，但是集体的而且几乎没有留下录音的状况足以说明问题。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 11:23
那我开个帖子来说说为什么很多指挥不指或很少指蒙特威尔第？或者反过来，换成施特劳斯家族？
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-11 11:29
本帖最后由 Jwang 于 2013-5-11 13:20 编辑
这里我转个Barenboim的采访，其中很多观点都很有意义。红字是我认为很有意义部分。粗体是提问部分。
Interview conducted by Wolfgang Schaufler for Universal Edition Wien, 27.4.2009
Mr. Barenboim, do you remember when you heard for the first time the music of Gustav Mahler?
Barenboim: Not exactly. I remember playing the songs on the piano with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau in the early ‘70s. At that time we played the Wunderhorn-Songs, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, Rückertlieder: all of them except the Kindertotenlieder, because they were not originally scored for piano. The first Mahler Symphony I conducted was the 5th, in 1973. But I came – in my biography, as it were – quite late to Mahler.
Do you remember a concert that opened your ears to the world of Mahler?
Barenboim: No, rather the opposite. I remember many concerts that made me dislike it even more, because I found, in the Mahler concerts I had heard, two extremes of realisation. One was exaggeratedly emotional, in the sense that the text was used as an excuse for self-expression on the part of the conductor, even if it was sometimes done at a very high level. Others withdrew from any kind of emotional content, making it rather dry.
I was ‘allergic’ to what I found at that time to be artificialities in the music.
I also disliked – I’m being very negative on purpose – the fact that Mahler was, and still is, the only composer who is discussed mostly in non-musical terms. Whenever somebody says, “I don’t like Mahler,” or “I love Mahler,” it usually has to do with a psychoanalytical take on his music: Sigmund Freud and all these things. And I think this is terrible. You would never think or talk about Beethoven like that, about his deafness or anything else or about Chopin’s tuberculosis. In other words, the biography of the composer, and the musical diary which he writes – and the oeuvres of all great composers are musical diaries – are not really related. Beethoven wrote some of the most positive music at a time of complete distress, and vice versa.
How did your opinion change?
Barenboim: Little by little – even when I thought I didn’t like it – I became interested in so many details about the orchestration, the use of the dynamics. Mahler was probably the first composer who consciously, and permanently, wrote individual dynamics for the instrument.
Most composers write a dynamic vertically in a score: piano, forte, crescendo. Now, the job of the conductor, of course, is to make this audible. If you have a whole orchestra making a crescendo from A to D,and already at A, the trombones, horns, trumpets, and timpani are making a crescendo, you will never hear the second flute, or the violas, or any other instruments. Therefore, part of the job of the conductor is to create a balance, and to make the crescendo audible, according to the importance of the instruments that are playing the music.
This is also another reason why this wonderful idea of ‘faithfulness to the text’ is absolutely not true. It doesn’t exist. If you play a symphony you don’t hear anything unless you understand the reason behind it. It’s not a question of changing; in other words, the choice for a conductor or a musician is not: “Do I faithfully reproduce what is printed, or do I change it?” This is not the right question; it is certainly not the right choice. The right question, in my view, is: “What does the composer mean by that?” （在别的贴，我提到不存在原稿的忠实的讲法）It says crescendo, so how do I make this crescendo audible? I must make sure that the heavyweights - the brass, and timpani, the percussion - start their crescendo later, when the weaker instruments have already made the crescendo. When you see the second bar of the famous Prelude to Tristan and Isolde with the famous Tristan chord, if all the instruments make the diminuendo at the same time, you lose the line. Therefore the oboe, which is the instrument that continues, has to make a diminuendo later. Now if you talk about faithfulness to the text, this does not happen, because then you wouldn’t hear it. All these aspects fascinated me with Mahler.
Mahler very often wrote the same music, the same notes, in different groups of instruments, with opposite dynamics.
Barenboim: Absolutely. You have the same notes, but you have, for instance, the clarinets starting fortissimo and making a diminuendo, and at the same time in unison, the violas starting pianissimo and making a crescendo to fortissimo. So you have the line more or less sustained on one level of volume, but with a complete change of colour. This aspect, I realised then, was in fact indicative of his complexity, while I had thought before that this was artificiality.
And this is what drew me more and more to his music. I must say, my occupation with Wagner also drew me to Mahler, because the Wagner influence on Mahler is very often ignored. One only talks about Mahler’s Jewish origins and Klezmer music and psychoanalysis and all these things, but basically, without Wagner there would have been no Mahler. And the most interesting thing about Mahler is that he really had one foot in the past and one in the future, that he had one foot in Wagner’s world and the other foot in Schönberg’s, and as such was a great transitional figure. He wrote with a historical modernism, which is almost, I would say, unique, in the development of music, because it was tied to a very old-fashioned sense of form. The symphony with Mahler is a very old-fashioned form of the symphony, the same that started with Haydn and Mozart, then went through all the developments, through Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner. And you find yourself with this strange combination of almost an enlarged 18th century structure with a 20th century content and a 19th century musical idiom. So, in effect, the complexity of Mahler and its greatest appeal to me is that it is, in a way, the affirmation of three centuries of musical thinking.
There were three Mahler waves: one, at the première in Munich of his 8th Symphony, followed by some Mahler concerts in Vienna; then 1920, in Amsterdam, the Mahler-Festival. But the real Mahler renaissance started in the late 60s, more than 40 years later. Why so late?
Barenboim: With Bernstein in America and Barbirolli in Europe. One must not underestimate Barbirolli’s importance as a Mahler conductor. Barbirolli was less famous than Bernstein, and had less appeal to the general public, but Barbirolli was the conductor who brought Mahler to the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra at a time when Mahler was not only unknown but was never played. It was only after he created a furor with a recording of the 9th Symphony that Karajan himself became interested and conducted, I think, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th and the 9th Symphonies. He had always conducted Das Lied von der Erde. Also, it was more organised if you worked with Bernstein than with Barbirolli. But Furtwängler conducted quite a lot of Mahler, much more than one realises, in the early 30s and the 20s – the 3rd Symphony and other works.
But Mahler was one of those composers who inspired - and in a way still does – a sort of specialisation. Therefore, if you were not a Mahler expert, and you were an expert in other areas, you didn’t touch Mahler. But already in the ‘20s, as you mentioned, there were two directions; there was Bruno Walter on the one hand, and Klemperer on the other hand. And I remember I heard most of the Mahler Symphonies – most, not all, certainly not the 8th and not the 1st—with Klemperer in London, and it was a completely different world from Bruno Walter. And then of course came Bernstein with his unique exuberance and personal involvement, which was the antipode.
You mentioned Klemperer and Bruno Walter, and both knew Mahler. Did you talk with them about the experience?
Barenboim: I never met Bruno Walter, but I knew Klemperer – I played quite a lot with him, and also recorded all the Beethoven concertos with him in the 60s – and he repeated to me what he said on the television. They asked him: “You are a great Mahler conductor, you knew Mahler, and there was another conductor, Bruno Walter, who also knew Mahler. What is the difference between the two of you?” And he said, “Bruno Walter was a moralist, and I’m an immoralist.”（很有意思！！！）
Bernstein said: “We are now ready to understand Mahler after the catastrophes of the 20th century”.
Barenboim: I don’t believe in talking about music in those terms. I really don’t believe that the world is more ready or less ready. With older composers, you see that there is a different Zeitgeist that led to performances of works, and some composers inspire, if you will, a certain way of dealing with their music very quickly, and others more slowly. Take Beethoven; there were different schools of thoughts about Beethoven in the piano world: with Schnabel, Backhaus, Edwin Fischer, and Kempff – I’m talking about the older generation – there were four different worlds. Different, if you like, ‘styles of interpretation,’ although I don’t like the word interpretation. On the other hand, even today the interest in Schubert, who died only one year after Beethoven, has not yet brought different schools of thought, not to speak of composers who came later, like Debussy. In the piano world there were Michelangeli, Gieseking. and Claudio Arrau, but it has not really been followed as such. I have a lot of admiration for Bernstein – I heard him and I played with him, and I heard so many wonderful concerts of his – but I don’t like speaking about music in those terms.
And in terms of the style of conducting Mahler, are you closer to Bernstein or to Klemperer?
Barenboim: I think you should answer that. If you come to the concerts yourself you will hear... I don’t know.
There were other figures that I remember hearing wonderful Mahler concerts with, who are not considered in the mainstream: I remember hearing Raphaël Kubelik once, conducting the most wonderful 1st Symphony with the Bayerischer Rundfunk Orchester in London, and suddenly you saw the connection between Mahler and Dvorak, not because Kubelik was Czech but because there was something so natural about it in that Symphony; Jascha Horenstein was also a wonderful Mahler conductor, and Paul Kletzki. These are all people who don’t mean so much today, but it wasn’t that Mahler was not played, he was just not played by the ‘big names’ as it were. All of this I’m talking about was in the 50s, before Bernstein and Barbirolli became interested in Mahler. But the development of how his music is seen is one thing, and another is the development of its popularity.
Richard Strauss said he doesn’t understand the obsession of Mahler with suffering and redemption. He simply didn’t know what he needed redemption from.
Barenboim: There is a very beautiful, very poetic, video document with Leonard Bernstein, called The Little Drummer Boy, where he talks all about Mahler’s Jewish background, and that Mahler had this feeling of guilt over having been Jewish. It’s very lovely and it’s very poetic, but it doesn’t help to understand the music one bit, in my view, not one bit. I remember the most wonderful performance of Mahler’s 9th with Giulini, but then people were saying: Oh yes, Giulini is a fervent Catholic, and you feel this redemption, and you feel this being as one with God, and all these things. In the end, I’m reminded of a reply by Toscanini, when he was asked about the ‘Eroica’ Symphony and they said: “Maestro, what do you think? Some people say that Beethoven wrote the ‘Eroica’ against Napoleon.” “Ah!” he said, “I know, they say it is against Napoleon, and then they say it is against Mussolini and against Hitler. For me, the ‘Eroica’ of Beethoven is allegro con brio.” In other words, it is very dangerous to try to verbalise music, because in the end we don’t speak about the music, but we speak about our reaction to it. And frankly, I am not interested in Leonard Bernstein’s reaction to the music, what he says, I am interested in how he conducted the music, and for this I don’t need these words. I know this sounds very radical, but it’s not an unimportant point. Because, if you think for a moment about all that you have heard and read about Mahler, it mostly uses non-musical terms.
So Mahler’s biography did not affect his music?
Barenboim: I don’t think you can find the reason for anything artistic in the biography. Some people are more articulate than others. Christoph Schlingensief, who is a fantastically talented stage director, creator, artist, who does so many different things, and who suffered terribly in the last couple of years from an absolutely devastating cancer of the lung, has written a whole book about this. He felt the need to do that, and I am sure that book, which I’m reading now, will help a lot of cancer patients, and people who suffer from other illnesses, to learn about the necessity to talk about it. But does it make me understand Schlingensief the artist better? No. It is a completely separate entity. And Mahler talked about his neuroses and things, and Beethoven didn’t. I’m sure he had his own; we all do.
Coming back to the music, what’s the most important thing a conductor has to avoid when conducting this music? Can it be conducted too emotionally?
Barenboim: I don’t believe that music is either emotional or rational. As I’ve said, all this terminology only speaks about our reaction to it. If there’s only emotion, you cannot really make music, because music is a combination of things; music is larger than all of this. And the difficulty in talking about music is that music definitely has a very strong content, but that content can only be expressed in sound. (切利更进一步，音乐不仅是声音的总和，而且是在特定声学环境下的总和）If you try to express it in words, you only reduce it. The greatness of music is precisely that it can laugh and cry at the same time, that it can be mathematical and sensual at the same time, that it can be all extremes and opposites put together. Music, in that sense, is a whole creation, it’s a creation of a world where everything is expressed through sound. And therefore whatever you say about it is not a description of the thing itself, but a description of your perception of it at that moment. Therefore you are not speaking about Mahler, and if I say to you, yes you can conduct Mahler 2 emotionally, it doesn’t say anything about the music. I think that in Mahler you need a combination of everything, like in all music, like you need in Mozart, though it’s a completely different style. Or, like you would need in the works of Pierre Boulez, although again it’s a completely different style. You need the structure; you need to fill the structure with emotional content and you have to give the emotional content a structure, because music happens in time. You play so many bars, and after so much time you go into another area, and in order to do that the time has passed, and you really need that. And when you talk about music in terms of emotional or rational, you take each section by itself, and you lose the fluidity of it. [Pauses] I am being very negative with all your questions.
Well, we are talking on Mahler and he was a very bad yes-sayer, - a quote from Adorno.
Barenboim: And you know, Richard Strauss, who God knows was a great composer, was the master of orchestration, the master of opera, the master of all these things – if you think about it, Richard Strauss’ most innovative works were written in his youth. The early tone poems: Don Juan, Till Eulenspiegel, Tod und Verklärung, and also Elektra and Salome, are more interesting than Daphne, Frau ohne Schatten, Capriccio, the Oboe Concerto and the Four Last Songs. So, it’s not an example of how to deal with the passage of time. If you want to deal with the passage of time, you have to pick on composers who kept changing, and who kept developing, like Beethoven. Beethoven started as a completely classical composer, out of Haydn and Mozart, developed in his middle period into larger forms, virtuoso writing for the piano, very strong, expression-filled symphonies, and then went into his late periods where he tore everything apart. There is this convention of saying that when you get older you get milder. This is not true; Beethoven is exactly the opposite. Strauss got milder, Beethoven was a fury, and he didn’t feel the necessity anymore for these things, everything was extreme and cut into small pieces. Therefore, Strauss’ opinion about Mahler is, to me, not that important.
You’re conducting Mahler’s 9th Symphony. I quote: ‘It has no muscles, only nerves’ at the end, in the last movement. Can it be compared with Beethoven, Opus 111?
Barenboim: Well, of course you can compare it in the sense that both end with slow movements, both end very quietly, that both have peaceful conclusions, but I think that’s where the comparison ends. I remember Bernstein talking very eloquently, because he was extraordinarily eloquent, about the beginning of Mahler’s 9th, saying that this was his arrhythmic heart - the cellos and the 4th horns syncopated. Maybe, maybe. But in the end the expression is the evocation of a world where there is a pianissimo A that keeps being repeated with syncopations - in other words, with a feeling of instability in the rhythm between the low strings - the cellos and the 4th horn playing the same thing, totally out of context for two bars. And then you get the harp that comes in forte, and you hear for the first time another note, other than the A, the F sharp, and little by little, it takes a few bars, and then you know that you are in D major. And I’d rather think of music in these terms: that it is a search for tonality, that it is a search for rhythmic stability, and a search for a melody which is also constantly interrupted. I prefer this to talking about it in terms of nerves, muscles or flesh.
Bernstein said of the first movement of the Ninth Symphony, it’s a composed farewell [sings motif to the word ‘farewell’]. Would you agree?
Barenboim: It’s F sharp, E. [Laughs]. I believe in the absoluteness of music. I think this is why we are still, in 2009, interested in music that was written in 1700. This is why this music is something that is part of our existence today, in the same way that music that is being written today, by Elliot Carter or Pierre Boulez or whoever it may be, is also part of our existence. There are some things in music that are so essential to the human being, and that apply to the qualities of the human being, that, throughout the centuries, are the things that interest, amuse and persecute the human being: the themes of existence. And it is very absolute in that. And the minute you start dissecting it, you only reduce the absoluteness of music.
Coming back to your biography, you conducted a lot of Mahler in America, in Chicago and with other orchestras, and in Europe. Is there a different approach, is there a different Mahler style in America, or would you say it’s quite similar?
Barenboim: I don’t think one can speak about America in one ‘garb’ like this, you know. The Mahler of Chicago, to name an orchestra that has been very closely connected with Mahler for so many years, through its music directors – before me, Solti conducted a lot of Mahler too, even Reiner did – and the Mahler of the Cleveland Orchestra is completely different. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra – like with so much of the repertoire – brings a perfection and a weight of sound, naturally, to his music, which is unique. But I don’t think one can talk about a clear transatlantic difference.
You started in ‘73 with the 5th. How did you proceed?
Barenboim: I conducted the 5th because I was a very stubborn child, and then a stubborn young man, and I went to a concert of Mahler’s 7th Symphony in London, which Klemperer conducted, and I hated the piece, and I told him: ‘I can’t stand it’. And it was on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and Klemperer said to me, he said, “You are so terrible that you even preferred the 7th Mahler to going to the synagogue.” And then he gave me a whole lecture, （这里表明Klemperer 讲了很多，Klemperer心里一定有很多不满的）saying: ”You are so limited; this is the Furtwängler influence.” Furtwängler didn’t like this because Mahler was Jewish, and all of these very exaggerated, unnecessary remarks. （这里Klemperer讲了富特不喜欢马勒的音乐因为马勒是犹太人。当然, Klemperer的话不能全信。Klemperer本身是犹太人，他会带有种特殊的敏感性。从他两次转宗教，这就表明了他思想的剧烈变化和作为个指挥在当时德奥系在音乐界的绝对统制下外在的压力）And he said to me, basically, “the only Mahler Symphony that is not good is the 5th.” So, of course, that is the symphony that I conducted. Aus Trotz [out of spite].
And which came later?
Barenboim: I didn’t conduct another Mahler Symphony for over 20 years. And it was Fischer-Dieskau who taught me a lot about Mahler, precisely about the nervousness, if you like, about the disquieting atmosphere that there is in his music. There is always something that is not at face value. There is always something behind it that creates a certain nervousness, also in the sound he looked for. And I remember doing an all-Mahler recital with him on piano – it must have been some time in the ‘70s – and I thought, my God, this is really quite extraordinary. And then I conducted a lot of songs, and I conducted Lied von der Erde after that. I cannot tell you an exact date, but it was only in the mid-90s that I conducted more Mahler symphonies: the 7th, the 9th, and then the 1st. And I conducted the Adagio of the Mahler 10th two months ago for the first time, so I’m anything but a Mahler specialist.
You’ve conducted the 9th Symphony. It’s the only Symphony Mahler never heard, and he never revised it. Do you think he would have revised some parts, or is the balance perfect?
Barenboim: You know, the Mahler revisions are a very complex subject. If you take the 5th Symphony, and you take the first version and the revised version, there are some things which are obviously changed with a clear idea of what he wanted to change. But there are other changes which I feel were a result of the insufficiency of the technical qualities of the orchestras of the time. There are doublings in the 5th Symphony, between the violas and the 2nd violins, but he felt the violas would not be able to play some passages, and so he took them out. And other things like this. This is why, to this day, with the 5th symphony I conduct a mixture of the revised versions, which, I have to say, nobody who actually heard the Symphony, all the critics all over the world – and I have conducted the 5th Symphony many, many, many times – ever noticed. So I think that this is very much a theoretical subject; it’s not something that is so obvious to the ear.
So, in the 9th Symphony, I don’t know whether he would have made some changes technically. Except for a few passages, it’s not of the difficulty of the 5th, the 6th and the 7th.
The difficulties are other than technical. The most wonderful thing, I think, about the Mahler Symphonies – and this is why Pierre Boulez and I decided to do this cycle in one go – is that it is as if Mahler looked for and found a different idiom for each Symphony. Very few composers did that; Beethoven did. If you don’t know too much about music and you hear Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, and then you hear the ‘Pastoral’, you think it’s by a different composer, which you cannot say about Brahms, which you cannot say about Bruckner, and you cannot say about Schumann; but you can certainly say it about Mahler. Yes, there are the early Symphonies, 1–4; and then you have 5, 6, 7, 8; and then the end. But basically, in each Symphony, even between the 2nd and the 3rd and the 3rd and the 4th, it is like it is a different creator, a different composer. And this is the most fascinating thing. And when we did this cycle for the first time complete, in one go like this – two years ago – it was a fascinating experience: for us, for the two conductors, because we both heard each other’s concerts, so we lived the cycle in chronological order.
Is there any Mahler work you feel especially close to, that means more to you than others?
Barenboim: No. I conduct only the symphonies with which I feel, in the moment I’m conducting them, that they are my favourite pieces of music. But I say that not only about Mahler, I say that about every composer. I don’t conduct any music out of duty. I don’t conduct contemporary music out of duty; I conduct the Notations of Pierre Boulez, and I don’t know how many pieces of Elliott Carter I have conducted, and Harrison Birtwistle, because I like the music, and I like to delve further and further into it. I have been conducting Notations by Pierre Boulez since the world première in 1980 – next year it will be 30 years – and each time I find in them something new, in the same way that I find something new in the ‘Eroica’. And with the symphonies of Mahler that I’ve conducted I feel that very strongly each time.
To come back to the Jewish background, you said the Jewish background, and even that he faced anti-Semitism all his life, did not affect his music.
Barenboim: No, I didn’t say that. I said that Leonard Bernstein, in his very beautiful and very poetic essay, The Little Drummer Boy, talks about this, and he gives the explanation that Mahler’s sense of guilt came from having been Jewish. But I will tell you another Klemperer story, and that will tell you exactly what I mean. I met Klemperer in 1965 or 64, it was just a little bit before I met my then future wife, Jacqueline du Pré, and Jacqueline came from a perfectly, purely English background, from the English countryside. She had this unique musical talent, but in a childish way, she said: ”You know, there is something so beautiful and wonderful about Jewish tone in the string players, in Heifetz, and in so many other Jewish musicians.” They had this very vibrant sound, and because of that – it sounds like a great exaggeration but it isn’t – she said, if we get married I want to convert. And it was then that Klemperer also met her, and we told him that. “Oh”, he says, “then we must go to the synagogue together.” So, we went in London to the synagogue together: Jacqueline, who had not converted yet; Klemperer, who had converted from Judaism to Christianity and back; and me, who was born a Jew. And after this service in the synagogue, I asked Klemperer: “Why did you convert? Was it because of the fear of anti-Semitism?” And he said: “No, when I was 23 years old I wanted to conduct the St. Matthew Passion of Bach, and in my stupidity I thought that in order to conduct and understand the St. Matthew Passion, one had to be Christian. So I converted to Christianity.” And I said: “Why did you convert back?” (He was already quite old when he converted back to Judaism.) He said: “Because I realised that it was not necessary.”（呵，大师也有愚蠢的时候。不过我想Klemperer 从犹太教转为天主教，再转为犹太教，这当中大概没这么简单。）
Now I don’t know so much about Mahler’s feeling about that, his guilt or lack of guilt or all these things. I am sure that the anti-Semitism under which he suffered so desperately was very strong and very real, no question about that. Did he feel the necessity, because of that, to write some parts that are Jewish-sounding, or not? Maybe. Probably, yes.
But this is not the content of his music.
Barenboim: No. Aida by Verdi was, as you know, commissioned by the Egyptians for the Cairo Opera House. There was no Western music to speak of in Africa, in Egypt. Verdi was extraordinarily interested and persevered in finding out everything possible about that. And there was a book published, I think in 1869, maybe 67, by a Belgian musicologist [Francois-Joseph Fétis] about world music. This man wrote four volumes, one of which has a whole chapter about Arab music, about the Arab scales and everything; this is what you hear in some of this Aida. Now, yes, you can explain it in a thousand ways; this was the European cultural imperialist who was bringing music to Africa. Maybe. Who knows? The fact is that he was interested, and he went in a very scientific way into the details of all that.
I’m not suggesting that Mahler’s Judaism had anything to do with that. I’m just saying that sometimes certain things that have to do with the music, and with the music of foreign environments, foreign aesthetics, are interesting. Messiaen and Debussy were interested in the music of the Far East, and made some kind of interesting compilation of that with a European system. Carmen – one of the most famous operas ever written – the most famous piece in it is the Habanera. The habanera comes from Havana. In other words, it is the music of the Caribbean, as seen by a European in Paris. And the music of the Caribbean comes from Africa. So if you want, if you want to look at it like this, then of course it is true that the Habanera from Carmen is a triangle that went from Africa to the Caribbean and then was brought back and mixed together with Western music, in other words with Caribbean and African spices in the food. But these are all things which are of great interest in terms of curiosity, but don’t actually hold great interest in terms of the way we understand and perceive the music.
Did Mahler discover new dimensions in terms of orchestral power?
Barenboim: No. But in the harmonic world, in the use of compositional techniques and dynamics, in the orchestration, in the complexity of it all, here he discovered new worlds. But in what you would call the emotional content of the music: no. I think the emotional content of the music, the relation of the music to the human being, with the condition of being human, is already in Bach. And it went through so many transformations, and complexities, and new techniques, and new instruments of course. But I think that the problems that face the human being today, in the most intimate and personal way, are the same problems that faced the human being as many centuries ago as you want. Now it is quicker, the tempo of life is different; now we can fly in aeroplanes and then we went with horses, and we can cook with a microwave and all these things; there has been technological development, the development of understanding in so many realms, the acceptance of social development. I went as a 15-year-old boy in Miami in 1957 to a golf club where a sign read: “No Jews, No Negros, and No Dogs Allowed”. And now, 52 years later we have a black President in America. This is progress, because the human being learned about his mistakes in the past. But the human condition, existential human problems, I think have not changed.
And Mahler is the voice of the 20th century to express this?
Barenboim: Mahler has one foot in the 19th century, and one towards the end of the 20th century, no question. And you can imagine everything, you can imagine that this huge fortissimo in the 9th Symphony of Beethoven in the last movement, “Und der Cherub steht vor Gott, vor Gott, vor Gott, vor Gott”, and there is a fantastic, terrible modulation, that you feel the whole world comes to an end. And somebody will tell you, this is already a premonition of Auschwitz. Sure, you can imagine all those things, and these images very often are very helpful to many people in the way that they perceive the music, but the music is always larger than that.
But Mahler himself wrote programmes in the first symphonies.
Barenboim: Yes, Beethoven did too. And I’m still more interested in the music that he wrote than in the programmes. I don’t want to conduct a Mahler Symphony so that it justifies the programme! I want to conduct a Mahler Symphony according to what I am able to read in the score. And if you have read the programme and it fits, all the better.
You mentioned Auschwitz. I read, in preparation for these interviews, that Hitler attended a performance of Lohengrin in the state opera, and Mahler conducted.
Barenboim: I didn’t know.
Is there a meaning behind it?
Nothing probably. No.
But how can you explain it? Hitler went to a performance of Lohengrin, he went to many performances of Lohengrin, and he is meant to have gone to a performance of Lohengrin in Bayreuth in 1936 conducted by Furtwängler, which I am sure was so wonderful, and he was moved to tears by it. How do you put together the fact that you can be moved to tears by music, and then murder millions of people? Or Stalin, whose favourite piece of music was the D minor Concerto of Mozart, probably was also moved to tears by it, and 20 million people were murdered by him. How is this possible? You cannot connect these things. That’s why I keep repeating the same phrase, ‘the music is larger than all of this.’ The music is like a complete world, a world you can talk about: you can talk about nature, you can talk about the lakes, and you can talk about the mountains, and you can talk about the cities, and you can talk about the desert. But the whole world always includes a lot more. And when you talk about Mahler’s neuroses and Mahler’s fear of anti-Semitism and all this, it’s as if you were talking about the world, about only one element in it. And these are all things that were inside him, and like all great musicians, what he gave us is not only an exercise in counterpoint, melody and rhythm, but what he felt as the innermost content of his being.
Mahler said: a mystery remains.
Barenboim: That’s right.
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-11 11:45
本帖最后由 Jwang 于 2013-5-11 11:57 编辑
这个论题本来就不妥。那多少人有很多巴赫的录音？于是巴赫就不重要了？楼主问我的观点是什么，我前面说清楚 ...
桂猪 发表于 2013-5-11 10:45
我不䏻说你的讲法绝对没道理。但是由于马勒在音乐史上的地位，他音乐揭示的人类普遍属性的深刻度，又是德奥音乐系统里产生出的，但是德奥很多指挥家不碰或少碰。又加上马勒的背景，如有人提出这个现象是很正常的。至于其中的原因是什么?我想没经过大量研究是讲不清的。就是有了大量的研究，我想也只能做到让读者自己判断。
当然你认为这是不是问题的问题。这也是种观点。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-11 12:34
本帖最后由 桂猪 于 2013-5-11 12:35 编辑
音乐的演出有现实的一面，争曲目，争首演，各种现实因素无不围绕音乐。马勒阵地早被人占领，如何对待地位不明朗的音乐自然更需慎重。
作者: zxh999 时间: 2013-5-11 16:51
滕斯泰特说过，如果你没有忍受过不幸，你无法指挥马勒。我比较赞同，听马勒也是如此。呵呵
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-11 19:12
本帖最后由 shinelb 于 2013-5-11 19:36 编辑
滕斯泰特说过，如果你没有忍受过不幸，你无法指挥马勒。我比较赞同，听马勒也是如此。呵呵
zxh999 发表于 2013-5-11 16:51
有道理的。就像门德尔松一生安逸、没经过什么苦难，因此他的作品大多显得不够深刻。他的作品主要都是歌颂生活的美好的，这和他的生活经历有关。马勒的一生是充满痛苦和不幸的，他的作品充满对生活的疑问和思考，非常凝重深刻。大家喜欢马勒，这和马勒的音乐产生共鸣有关，因为在这个世界上，人们是要经历很多痛苦的，马勒是芸芸众生里的一个代表人物，他的作品反映了深刻的人性，他的作品具有世界的普遍意义.....
丰富的生活感受是艺术创作的起点和初衷......
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-11 20:16
了解马勒最好读一读这本书，目前活跃在舞台上的指挥家谈马勒。[attach]70166[/attach]
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-11 22:19
给我激动坏了，点进去一看是英语唱的，真坑爹……
我昨天也查了一些资料，查到战后只有一次51年的《费得里奥》现场留下了录音。这个56年《魔笛》想必是最近才翻出来的，所以我查的资料里没有。
瓦尔特留下两版《费得里奥》的现场，也算对得起他心爱的这部歌剧了。（41年的录音我听过，力荐！）
对不起，我又在跑题，大家继续马勒吧。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-11 23:24
回复 burt5177 的帖子
中文版，应该是内部发行的，上面巴伦勃依姆那篇也在里面，这本是朋友送我的，有没有卖我就不知道了。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-12 00:10
给我激动坏了，点进去一看是英语唱的，真坑爹……
我昨天也查了一些资料，查到战后只有一次51年的《 ...
Rozinante 发表于 2013-5-11 22:19
他的魔笛40年代后都是英文版。56年这个用的是两个崇拜者Ruth Martin和Thomas Martin的英译本。这场演出第三代J.D.洛克菲勒的老婆私人出了9万美元的资助费。
41年的费德里奥我传到土豆上了。音质还不错。
http://www.tudou.com/programs/vi ... sourceId=0_06_02_99
作者: 狗儿念经 时间: 2013-5-12 13:40
挺热闹的，呵呵。其实在我看来大师们对马勒的好恶只有一个：心理层面的好恶，这根马勒本身没啥关系。
作者: robinwood 时间: 2013-5-12 16:12
回复
中文版，应该是内部发行的，上面巴伦勃依姆那篇也在里面，这本是朋友送我的，有没有卖我就不知道了。 ...
burt5177 发表于 2013-5-11 23:24
我也有这本没看完，不过挺有意思，哈哈！每个指挥说得都不一样！
内部书刊买不到，我也是业内人士送的！
作者: 远视眼 时间: 2013-5-12 16:46
宝书可否借阅？
作者: robinwood 时间: 2013-5-13 00:19
这样吧，我看完以后一个个轮着看！如何？
作者: 命运狂想 时间: 2013-5-15 18:56
回复 scfan 的帖子
托斯卡尼尼在1896年在都灵就指挥过布鲁克纳第七交响曲的Adagio，在纽约爱乐时期指挥过布鲁克纳的第四和第七交响曲No. 4: November 24 & 25, 1932; February 3, 1934
No. 7: March 4, 6, 7, & 8, 1931; January 24, 25, & 26, 1935.第七交响曲留下过不完整的私人录音
作者: 命运狂想 时间: 2013-5-16 21:33
回复 命运狂想 的帖子
用他自己的话说：这家伙（布鲁克纳）不碰女人。托斯卡尼尼觉得布鲁克纳的音乐缺乏人情味，其实最主要的原因是，当时布鲁克纳的音乐语言在德奥以外不太有观众缘，没有市场，没有听众，自然演出很少
作者: alma 时间: 2013-5-17 01:24
本帖最后由 alma 于 2013-5-17 01:33 编辑
马勒就是狗屎，就像福特文格勒是狗屎一样。这种事还需要讨论？
我完全同意桂兄的说法。当然，O(∩_∩)O~
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-17 01:43
马勒就是狗屎，就像福特文格勒是狗屎一样。这种事还需要讨论？
我完全同意桂兄的说法。当然，O(∩_∩)O~
alma 发表于 2013-5-17 01:24
alma兄别来无恙！
还是那么爱喷，刚一露面就说自己夫君是狗屎。
作者: alma 时间: 2013-5-17 01:57
alma兄别来无恙！
还是那么爱喷，刚一露面就说自己夫君是狗屎。
Rozinante 发表于 2013-5-17 01:43
(⊙_⊙)？，那水天堂还不是老被人说他水( ⊙ o ⊙ )啊！
ID可以随时取。马勒和福特文格勒为什么是狗屎，O(∩_∩)O~，到上海来见我吧，我告诉你他们为什么很狗屎。O(∩_∩)O~。
这个；论坛确实很弱( ⊙ o ⊙ )啊！
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-17 02:14
(⊙_⊙)？，那水天堂还不是老被人说他水( ⊙ o ⊙ )啊！
ID可以随时取。马勒和福特文格勒为什么是狗屎 ...
alma 发表于 2013-5-17 01:57
如果一开始不把他们当圣人，他们永远也不至于变成狗屎……
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-17 12:51
欢迎李老师...
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-17 17:32
我承认我不听布鲁克纳很幼稚，但并不是不成熟的表现。最近猛听布鲁克纳，并不证明我不幼稚了，相反，不断地发现布鲁克纳很幼稚。只有他的第九证明了他的成熟和不幼稚，证明了他的伟大。
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-18 12:23
本帖最后由 Jwang 于 2013-5-18 23:32 编辑
关于马勒的宗教,我再来补充一些，因为这是理解马勒音乐的一个组成部分。
马勒实际上并不认为他自己的犹太背景是种可张扬的事。他本身也对于东欧的犹太人抱有成见。他的夫人Alma也说他是个机会主义者。Alma也是反犹太教的,她是瓦格纳的信徒。马勒深知作为犹太人在德国音乐界成功不易,他劝他的学生瓦尔特从犹人的姓Schlesinger改为比较中性的姓,Walter。虽然马勒自称为信上帝,但是他的上帝即不是基督教中的上帝,也不是犹太教中的上帝。他的上帝是种泛泛的命运。一种由外在强加于个人的力量。这里,我们就可以清楚地理解他音乐的核心的部分。马勒的音乐中不存在布鲁克纳那种上帝。他的上帝是种神秘的外在力量。这种高度个人化的上帝慨念无疑受到他的犹太背景,这种非基督教观念的左右。
马勒这种唾弃自己的宗教背景,而在实际上又无可避免地流露出他的犹太背景。他想真正地进入德奥正统,但正统的又无法彻底地接受他。这些都是不可解决的困境,这种困境也表达在他的音乐中。
这或许也是正统的德奥学派深知马勒音乐中非德奥的要素。当时著名的音乐评论家Rodolf Louis就明确地讲马勒的音乐是德奥的，但带有犹太人的色彩。甚至在二战后,还是有评论批评马勒音乐中的犹太因素。
瓦格纳攻击曼德尔松的很大原因是曼德尔松是犹太人。我这里讲并不是要存心强调犹太教及在音乐界的作用，我只指出这个实际存在的事实。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-18 13:22
本帖最后由 桂猪 于 2013-5-18 13:23 编辑
关于马勒的宗教,我再来补充一些。这是因为这是理解马勒音乐的一个组成部分。
马勒实际上并不认为他自己的 ...
Jwang 发表于 2013-5-18 12:23
你这个说法讲不通。一方面你说他信的不是基督教的上帝，也不是犹太教的上帝，一方面又说他高度个人化的上帝受到犹太背景的左右。
德奥、信仰、人种是三个概念，当杂糅在一起的时候，看着真头晕。这里面至少有八种组合。所谓正统德奥学派属于哪种？马勒又属于哪种？三个因素哪个（几个）在所谓正统德奥学派这个概念里权重最大或必不可少？哪个（几个）在哪个时期在所谓正统德奥学派这个概念里权重最大或必不可少？为什么？其他组合和这个组合相距多远？搞清楚了这些，再来讨论某种显著的现象吧。我想届时恐怕不会那么显著。
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-18 23:40
本帖最后由 Jwang 于 2013-5-18 23:47 编辑
你这个说法讲不通。一方面你说他信的不是基督教的上帝，也不是犹太教的上帝，一方面又说他高度个人化的上帝受到犹太背景的左右。
这个讲法不是我的。我没对马勒的一生作过系统的研究，我是不会这样轻易下结论的。这个观点是来自于这本书。
[attach]70530[/attach]
我自己的讲法是两点.
1, 马勒的这种复杂的宗教观的形成是和其犹太人的文化背景有关。由于他处在这种文化背景中及徳意志传统基督教的影响，再加上实际生活中的体验，他形成了这种个人化的复杂的宗教观。这种宗教观是各种因素交织影响下的产物。
2, 认识到马勒的这种宗教观，再来听他的音乐。我认识到这种讲法是多么贴切。这就象一个主导思想，我们就可以很准确地理解马勒的音乐。
德奥、信仰、人种是三个概念，当杂糅在一起的时候，看着真头晕。这里面至少有八种组合。所谓正统德奥学派属于哪种？马勒又属于哪种？三个因素哪个（几个）在所谓正统德奥学派这个概念里权重最大或必不可少？哪个（几个）在哪个时期在所谓正统德奥学派这个概念里权重最大或必不可少？为什么？其他组合和这个组合相距多远？搞清楚了这些，再来讨论某种显著的现象吧。我想届时恐怕不会那么显著。
所谓正统的德奥学派是比较复杂的概念。如要深究，这大大超越本帖的范围。但是我在用这个词时，大部分人会形成个相对接近的概念内含的。简单来说，我要说明的是马勒当初的那种矛盾心理和内心的斗争。
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-19 00:00
不过在这里我又发现了条切利不指挥马勒可能的原因。
1，切利是很虔诚的天主教徒，在宗教上，他可能轻蔑犹太教。
2，马勒对东欧犹太人抱有成见。切利是来自东欧。
当然这都是我的推测。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-19 00:01
回复 metamophore 的帖子
我个人觉得布鲁克纳只需要八首就足够了，根本就不需要第九，他的七和八才是他音乐的核心所在。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-19 00:08
马勒音乐里那么多的纠结、不自信、不愿离开尘世，另外马勒的音乐都是写他自己和上帝有何关系，上帝的作曲家巴洛克后只有两个一个是巴赫、另外一个是布鲁克纳。
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-19 00:15
回复
我个人觉得布鲁克纳只需要八首就足够了，根本就不需要第九，他的七和八才是他音乐的核心所在。
...
burt5177 发表于 2013-5-19 00:01
Burt老师说的非常有道理。
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-19 01:08
我是认为布八粗陋之极、蠢笨至极呢，还是我重复了勃拉姆斯的观点？
作者: Jwang 时间: 2013-5-19 02:18
马勒音乐里那么多的纠结、不自信、不愿离开尘世，另外马勒的音乐都是写他自己和上帝有何关系，上帝的作曲家 ...
burt5177 发表于 2013-5-19 00:08
我上面提到的是指马勒的宗教观，这个宗教观并不等同你用上帝一词的内含。我认为要理解马勒的音乐，必须理解他的宗教观。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-19 07:19
回复 metamophore 的帖子
布拉姆斯和布鲁克纳一个是往回写，一个是向前写。
作者: liao 时间: 2013-5-19 11:45
像带有明显又复杂宗教信仰的音乐家，如马勒等，不搞清楚他们内心的宗教情结，不弄明白他们所信宗教的内在东西，不管是诠释演绎者，还是欣赏者，会有理解上的障碍。以前听马勒等，有意回避宗教信仰问题，总觉难深入。这次去以色列，顺便恶补了宗教这一课，包括现场参观听介绍看书看影视等，前后动了些脑筋，再听好像多些内容，可找点过去不知道的东西。这一类音乐家不少，个人体会宗教问题似乎绕不开。
在各位大家面前乱扯了。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-19 13:39
我觉得理解马勒的音乐难点是要知道他说了些什么，用什么方式说的，马勒的音乐和宗教联系不大。理解音乐要有理论，这个理论可以是历史、心理学、逻辑学等等，不是所有的外国作品都和宗教有关，马勒的音乐难理解不是宗教问题，而是音乐和个人经历方面的问题。
作者: 狗儿念经 时间: 2013-5-19 14:02
本帖最后由 狗儿念经 于 2013-5-19 14:04 编辑
像带有明显又复杂宗教信仰的音乐家，如马勒等，不搞清楚他们内心的宗教情结，不弄明白他们所信宗教的内在东 ...
liao 发表于 2013-5-19 11:45
liao兄，宗教信与不信完全是两回事，信者即体验者，不信者学再多来龙去脉也是隔靴搔痒，这好比阅读了关于贝多芬的一切文本资料而没听过贝多芬一个样。我严重同意前面桂兄的点评：马勒是音乐家，懂他的音乐就懂了他的信仰！音乐跟信仰最接近的就是体验，而体验是不能用语言彻底表达的，因为那是高于语言的存在，都属于超然领域。
就我个人从马勒的音乐中所体会到的，无论他是与生俱来的犹太教徒，还是实用主义的天主教徒，我都能明显感受到他其实本质上是个泛神论者，呵呵。
作者: alma 时间: 2013-5-20 04:10
本帖最后由 alma 于 2013-5-20 04:21 编辑
回复
我个人觉得布鲁克纳只需要八首就足够了，根本就不需要第九，他的七和八才是他音乐的核心所在。
...
burt5177 发表于 2013-5-19 00:01
我完全不同意老师的说法：
布鲁克纳第七第八确实很好，但这种很好是完全不一样的，第七的前两个乐章很好，但是最后一个乐章就狗屎了吧，你不能说所有的指挥都很烂，但确实所有的版本在最后一个乐章都很烂。
第八当然很好。这也是我最喜欢的布鲁克纳交响曲，完成度很高。但是第九更好，可惜没写完，他说可以把感恩赞放在最后的地方。老师，您想想，他都认为感恩赞可以作为结束了，那第八交响曲可能吗？我认为，第九交响曲，应该可以作为他向上帝的告白，人性的告白。
可惜他没有写第十交响曲。我觉得布鲁克纳写第十，会是什么路数？舒伯特？莫扎特？还是贝多芬？嗯，他要是牛的话，估计就到海顿了吧。。我YY。
作者: alma 时间: 2013-5-20 04:18
如果一开始不把他们当圣人，他们永远也不至于变成狗屎……
Rozinante 发表于 2013-5-17 02:14
你这个说法是：狗屎和圣人的区别，是因为时间不同。你太牛了！
作者: alma 时间: 2013-5-20 04:40
本帖最后由 alma 于 2013-5-20 13:59 编辑
我觉得理解马勒的音乐难点是要知道他说了些什么，用什么方式说的，马勒的音乐和宗教联系不大。理解音乐要有 ...
burt5177 发表于 2013-5-19 13:39
完全 同意老师的说法，马勒的音乐与宗教没什么关系，他哪部音乐和宗教有关系了？第四？不是吧，最后一个乐章是那个时代为死者的通常安排，于是他也安排了。第九？也不是吧，最后一个乐章上帝也不见啊。
马勒这个人早早爬到高位，但是这么看怎么想都不满意的那类，灵魂不知如何安妥，小孩太太老出问题的那类了嘛。
马勒音乐中，他喜欢把乐句之间的宽度拉得很大，乐句之间的冲突拉得很大，然后乐句之间的长度拉得很大嘛，然后是乐句又很多嘛，再安排一个两个的插入，显得很炫耀。靠，这是文艺青年的做派呢。
所以嘛，马勒是狗屎吧。谁不同意，我拉黑他！
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-20 08:11
回复 alma 的帖子
顶alma， 马勒的时代已经过去了！
马勒应该是一个伟大的、精通管弦乐的乐队指挥，而不是伟大的作曲家。
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-20 09:33
今早在微博上看到一笑话
@薛明辉书法
龙开胜曾告诉我，某书家曾醉后狂言，二王算个蛋！他不是不会写，只是不屑去写。初，龙开胜一笑了之。某书家复言，写二王一路的都是傻逼！龙开胜怒，掷笔曰：别瞎吹，你特么的写一张二王我看看。你临张王羲之的帖，看能临像不？某书家见龙开胜动怒，遂闭口不言，旋即闪人了。
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-20 09:37
你这个说法是：狗屎和圣人的区别，是因为时间不同。你太牛了！
alma 发表于 2013-5-20 04:18
时间上其实也没啥不同。就像奴隶等于奴隶主一样：局长的奴隶就是科长的奴隶主。所以世界上的人可以分为两种：一种是自由的人，另一种是奴隶和奴隶主。同理，世界上的人也可以用另一种方法划分：一种是正常活人，另一种是圣人和狗屎。
逗贫嘴呢，大伙儿别认真。
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-20 09:40
scfan 发表于 1 分钟前
甲米老师应该没有听过马勒的指挥吧？何以定论他是个伟大的指挥？何以又定论他不是个伟大的作曲家？
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
哈哈，老师不敢当。我生的太晚了些或者说马勒死的太早了。其实真没有听过马勒的指挥，也就是看了些马勒的“传记”罢了。
马勒是不是伟大的作曲家，要看他的音乐。马勒的音乐就象一瓶劣质的酒，喝着让人兴奋，让人发泄，但对人的身心健康没有好处。不可否认，他对古典音乐的GDP是有贡献的。
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-20 09:50
哈哈，热闹欢迎alma回坛，找点好酒去！
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-20 15:47
我是顶马勒的，他的指挥我不知道如何，但他是一位伟大的作曲家是肯定的。
对于我来说，我觉得马勒有一些乐章确实很费解。
但总的来说，与马勒产生共鸣是很自然的事情，马勒的作品反映了深刻的人性。这可能和他复杂的人生体验有关。
要听懂马勒是需要一些人生经历和体验的。
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-20 15:50
哈哈，热闹欢迎alma回坛，找点好酒去！
甲米 发表于 2013-5-20 09:50
不管发生过什么事，李老师对极品论坛都是有很大贡献的。欢迎李老师。
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-20 16:20
马勒的音乐有这么深奥吗？
他是做浪漫（真正的浪漫，浪漫到痛苦极致）的大师，他也是制作恬静（他是那么沉浸于大自然的籁无寂声）的大师，他叙述他的幸福、他的痛苦，他流露出他的天真烂漫，他流露出他的无奈寂落，这些在他的音乐中俯拾皆是，但他不做乌托邦，不做怨天尤人，他的音乐不自虐，不浅俗，也不廉价。
这么多演绎马勒的大师，有哪一位坠落到并非马勒设下的厘不清的心理迷局？
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-20 17:21
甲米 发表于 半小时前 删除
不是不懂他，而是觉得他太唠唠叨叨、太歇斯底里、太长篇大论、太兴师动众，要想说点什么非要这样吗？
-----------------------------------------------
艺术的形式是复杂的，没有统一的标准的。普希金的诗歌和托尔斯泰的小说同样伟大的。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-20 19:45
后浪漫的音乐是古典、浪漫、民族、现代以及后现代乐派代替不了的。
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-20 21:07
马勒描写的的是一个他觉得正在消失的时代，所以他的音乐经常濒于歇斯底里的边缘。他冲着迅速弥漫的黑暗大喊，试图挽救某种己经迷式的生活方式，同时努力抑制自己对不可抗拒变化的恐惧。他的音乐是一种傲慢自大的殖民帝国时代的喧闹回声，充斥其无限扩张和膨胀的幻想。
作者: vincentlyl 时间: 2013-5-20 22:10
马勒是意识流，所有草稿都写进他的交响里了，所以“烂长”，这是我听说的，以供参考。
作者: 桂猪 时间: 2013-5-21 00:43
简单讲很多马勒指挥都不称职我有没有说中部分原因？
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-21 09:11
马勒描写的的是一个他觉得正在消失的时代，所以他的音乐经常濒于歇斯底里的边缘。他冲着迅速弥漫的黑暗大喊 ...
甲米 发表于 2013-5-20 21:07
与甲米兄讨论，我觉得马勒并不是描写正在消失的时代，相反，他描写的是未来的时代，正如他所说，他的时代就要来临，他说得没错，今天得到了印证，他的音乐大受欢迎。
音乐的内核与人性有关，对于人性，古往今来都有共同点的，从马勒的音乐里，今天我们找到了共鸣，这源于人性的本质。但在艺术里，表现人性的形式是多样的，而形式往往不太受人理解。
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-21 09:59
本帖最后由 scfan 于 2013-5-21 10:06 编辑
马勒提前揭示了无信仰乱世的到来，人性挣扎于其间的痛苦与迷失，与人类追逐美的本能相冲突。当然可以选择恢复古典甚至巴洛克时期的风格来躲避和迂回，也可以学他的后辈用简单无序的杂乱音乐来呐喊，更可以如他老师那样，用神来解答一切，然而马勒没有。他优雅而残酷地揭示了一切现实，却没有给出解答，也无法给出解答，这正是马勒伟大之处。
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-21 10:24
vincentlyl 发表于 11 分钟前 删除
后辈的果真是简单无序的杂乱音乐吗？明显是有章法的。
-------------------------------------------------------
有章法而无乐感，所以我称其“序列音”为无序
听音乐不是看音乐，用耳朵用心，而不是用眼睛
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-21 10:52
无调性的理论的确言之有理，但其音乐我觉得只能称为“音”，而非“乐”。
实在要说“乐”感的话，甲米老师对马勒的评论我倒觉得可以用在无调性音乐上，“经常濒于歇斯底里的边缘。他冲着迅速弥漫的黑暗大喊。他的音乐是一种时代的喧闹回声，充斥其无限扩张和膨胀的幻想。”
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-21 11:55
连海菲兹都说他不理解巴托克的 ....
作者: metamophore 时间: 2013-5-21 12:47
本帖最后由 metamophore 于 2013-5-21 12:52 编辑
如果无调性音乐深入人心的话，那为什么在Pop领域，无法展开无调性呢，在Pop领域走先锋、走极端的多得是，但有走无调性的吗？为什么要将无调性的黑旗压到classic 领域？固步自封而孤芳自赏吗？
成功的二十世纪音乐大师无一不是游走于调性和无调性之间，巴托克就是这样的大师啊。
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-21 13:08
本帖最后由 scfan 于 2013-5-21 13:13 编辑
嗯，“调性是一个系统，不仅仅限于和声体系，旋律、节奏、曲式乃至配器都无法与调性分离，或多或少依赖和声的张力和布局。” 无调性会直接导致音乐最重要的三元素“节奏、旋律、和声”的消失。所以尽管调性与不和谐音有矛盾，成功的大师也无法彻底脱离调性，只能善加以利用。
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-21 13:30
本帖最后由 shinelb 于 2013-5-21 13:36 编辑
当代艺术的发展，这是人类艺术史的发展的必然，也符合艺术规律。就说法国的三大美术博物馆：卢浮宫，奥赛和蓬皮杜中心。人最多的是卢浮宫，人最少的是蓬皮杜中心。卢浮宫主要是一些经典的传统作品，大家容易接受。但是绘画到了文艺复兴，已经达到写实的巅峰了，这条路很难再走下去的了。对于写实的绘画，文艺复兴三杰是无法超越的。而蓬皮杜中心就不同，很多前卫艺术一般人理解不了。那么这个蓬皮杜中心是不是不重要呢？相反，蓬皮杜中心其实很有必要，蓬皮杜中心代表着新艺术，也就是今天的艺术家在思考和探索什么？对于艺术，当代艺术是探索艺术的种种可能性的，不能简单地认为越多人理解的艺术就是最高明的艺术，真理往往掌握在少数人手里。当代音乐艺术的发展趋向与当代艺术类似，也符合这个规律。
作者: vincentlyl 时间: 2013-5-21 13:31
我认为这是一个欣赏角度和欣赏方法的问题。就像欣赏古典主义、浪漫主义画派的是否一定要拒绝印象主义，表现主义的绘画呢？当然用整个绘画艺术来作比较音乐艺术不一定完全合适，但从绘画的方式上和作曲的方式这个层面，还是有很多共通点的。
“无调性会直接导致音乐最重要的三元素，节奏、旋律、和声，的消失”这个观点有点不妥。其实无调性音乐本身就具备节奏，旋律，和声。节奏和旋律自不用说，这是音乐的基础。说到和声，在无调性音乐中比比皆是。只是这里的和声脱离了调性的约束，只表现为音响性。
有一点要补充下，我自己没怎么听过无调性音乐，我也不是说非常喜欢这种音乐。我只是觉得，有很多音乐的绝妙之处，纯粹靠听觉是不具备参考意义的。
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-21 13:51
如果无调性音乐深入人心的话，那为什么在Pop领域，无法展开无调性呢，在Pop领域走先锋、走极端的多得是，但有走无调性的吗？为什么要将无调性的黑旗压到classic 领域？固步自封而孤芳自赏吗？
成功的二十世纪音乐大师无一不是游走于调性和无调性之间，巴托克就是这样的大师啊。
metamophore 发表于 2013-5-21 12:47
我认为兄台所说的游走于调性和无调性之间可以这样理解：巴托克/普罗科菲耶夫/拉威尔等人的音乐其实都是根植于传统音乐的，他们的作品是可以看到巴赫，贝多芬等人对他们的影响的。现代音乐和当代音乐都不是凭空而来的，而是对传统的继承和创新。
尤其象斯特拉文斯基，他的第二时期我们也叫做新古典主义时期，这个时期，斯特拉文斯基基本上不搞新艺术了，他直接回到巴赫那里了。
听拉威尔和巴托克的钢琴协奏曲，可以感觉到贝多芬对他们的影响的。
作者: burt5177 时间: 2013-5-21 15:01
北京现代音乐节正在如火如荼地在中央音乐学院进行，那才是现代音乐，我们同常提到的都是老一辈的了，有感兴趣的可以到央院音乐厅”领教“。
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-21 16:49
本帖最后由 甲米 于 2013-5-21 16:53 编辑
想不明白，为什么这个论坛对现代音乐那么的排斥呢，你们有没有耐心的了解和学习听听现代音乐呢，凭什么这样瞧不上它呢。
一切艺术都是要发展的，否则就要面临灭亡的命运，最伟大的作曲家都是创新的。
作者: 远视眼 时间: 2013-5-21 17:37
当今的音乐创作，换言之“创新”，可能要到一百年后才能知道能不能流芳后世。。。
至少我个人非常不接受现代音乐，但我不反感有人非常喜欢。萝卜青菜，个人所爱。
作者: vincentlyl 时间: 2013-5-21 17:55
关于听感，的确每个人都会有自己的感受。我曾经开玩笑地在某个音响群里说，仅仅是听音乐，而不知道音乐的来龙去脉，这个就是所谓的“猪的听音方式”。理性的听感，是建立在理论学习后的。大多数人都有一种经历，一个曲目在心情好和心情不好时聆听，感觉区别很大。同样，拥有不同人生阅历的人聆听时的感受区别也很大。为什么会有这些现象？作曲家的“设想原型”是什么？当然绝大多数发烧友都没有这种好奇心。听音乐就听呗，听好后就可以继续YY，没事装*去研究什么狗屁乐理干嘛呢！可能有些事情注定就是天生的。
克列门斯的《音乐分析法》一书开头就举了个例子。一段莫扎特曲子的开头的音型，仅仅几个音符，作者马上能够意识到是什么调式的，什么节奏风格的，以及后续可能的发展模式（当然他估计错了，这里恰恰就体现了莫扎特的作曲功力），等等。他没看谱子，他仅仅是听现场演出，但他听到的东西，恰恰是我们根本不会、不懂、不屑，更说不清楚的东西。听，到底是听什么？看，到底是看什么？
关于钢琴家看谱，市面上有很多类似的大师论述钢琴演奏技巧之类的书籍。仔细看一下，这些大师的视角是什么？和作曲家的视角一样吗？很显然是不同的。
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-21 22:07
想不明白，为什么这个论坛对现代音乐那么的排斥呢，你们有没有耐心的了解和学习听听现代音乐呢，凭什么这样 ...
甲米 发表于 2013-5-21 16:49
我是不排斥现代音乐的，但是真不喜欢（指斯特拉文斯基、老肖那一拨之后的）……
我同意甲米兄说的：艺术要发展，否则就要灭亡。但是我同时觉得西方古典音乐已经是必死无疑，现代作曲家的努力无济于事。
回到本楼主题：马勒其实就是给年老体衰的古典音乐服用的伟哥：既传统又现代、既高深又通俗，而且在20世纪前半叶没有得到充分开发。他的音乐对听众是刺激，对指挥和乐团是挑战。没有他，古典音乐变成植物人还要提前二三十年。但是等到伟哥服用过量，大家听到马勒那些煽情旋律觉得反胃的时候，古典音乐就再没有回春的可能了。
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-21 22:15
关于听感，的确每个人都会有自己的感受。我曾经开玩笑地在某个音响群里说，仅仅是听音乐，而不知道音乐的来 ...
vincentlyl 发表于 2013-5-21 17:55
同意v师傅的观点。音乐里面藏的东西都是让人听的（也许莫扎特的那首“桌面二重奏”除外），学点乐理最终的目的还是训练耳朵。
作者: 远视眼 时间: 2013-5-21 22:23
楼上的结论会不会太悲观？古典之所以尊为古典，是经几百年的岁月洗礼而公认的经典，人类不会轻易忘却！
至于现代人的生活方式，目前不太合适古典音乐的传播，流传，但谁能说三五十年后人类不会再来个轮回，古典音乐这一人类瑰宝再次凤凰浧槃！
作者: Rozinante 时间: 2013-5-21 22:32
楼上的结论会不会太悲观？古典之所以尊为古典，是经几百年的岁月洗礼而公认的经典，人类不会轻易忘却！
...
远视眼 发表于 2013-5-21 22:23
孔子、耶稣、列侬都没有被人类忘却，但是人家都早死了。
我说的是古典音乐作为一个有机体必然要死掉。新作品越来越不灵，现代作曲家力不从心；没有新作品来激发灵感，马勒玩儿到头了，复古神马的也玩儿腻了，演奏家也会失去活力。那时候我们还有唱片听，但古典音乐本身则可以入土为安了。
作者: 甲米 时间: 2013-5-22 08:27
scfan 发表于 22 分钟前
我也很好奇想问问甲米老师，你有没有耐心了解和学习听听马勒呢？凭什么这样瞧不上他呢？
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
实不相瞒，马勒的大部分作品都听过，也看过一些论文，曾经很迷恋它。现在想法变了，可说不定将来又会喜欢也不一定，哈哈
作者: scfan 时间: 2013-5-22 08:28
关于钢琴家看谱，市面上有很多类似的大师论述钢琴演奏技巧之类的书籍。仔细看一下，这些大师的视角是什么？和作曲家的视角一样吗？很显然是不同的。vincentlyl 发表于 2013-5-21 17:55
第一，作曲家只留下了乐谱，谁是正确的解读？是文兄你？还是那些角度不同的钢琴大师们？
第二，钢琴大师们的著作，是为了指导弹琴的人如何演绎作品，的确是他们的精华所在，但不要以为看了大师的著作，就能领会到大师的境界了，音乐的精髓，永远是无法用文字来表达的。
好的老师都是去引导学生发挥，而不是用文字来规范学生向自己靠拢。所以看海菲兹的大师班，学生好比傻瓜，只剩海老一个人在显摆。他最终也没教出一个大师来。听海菲兹，还是看海菲兹？
扯远了，请大家在本贴回归到马勒的讨论吧。现代音乐或者音乐品鉴又或者读谱识谱，欢迎另行开贴讨论。
作者: shinelb 时间: 2013-5-22 13:24
孔子、耶稣、列侬都没有被人类忘却，但是人家都早死了。
我说的是古典音乐作为一个有机体必然要死掉。新作品越来越不灵，现代作曲家力不从心；没有新作品来激发灵感，马勒玩儿到头了，复古神马的也玩儿腻了，演奏家也会失去活力。那时候我们还有唱片听，但古典音乐本身则可以入土为安了。
Rozinante 发表于 2013-5-21 22:32
有一定道理的。西蒙拉图尔在柏林爱乐混得并不好，大家有没有思考过根源在哪里？
| 欢迎光临 极品人生 (http://hiendlife.com/x1/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |