Celibidache Music and Truth

“Pomato”??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomato

Pumped

Tomato!

I don't know... I didn't really understand his reasoning. Am I the only one? It seems like a somewhat random line of reasoning to me. Celibidache speaks of a belief referring to a central system of vibrations, and so far I can agree with that, simplifying and reinterpreting his vision in light of our knowledge of nature, but I sincerely didn't understand the transition he makes to music when he speaks of freedom. If it hadn't been Celibidache, I would have thought someone was raving about concepts pulled out of thin air. He even refers to Marx, saying that perhaps he was wrong. But don't you think it's true that art has had moments of maximum independence from the economic and social phases of humanity? It seems quite obvious if we observe history and artistic productions. He speaks of superstructures, saying that he tries to forget everything he knows when he has to produce music, whereas on the contrary, today we are rooted in the research and study of the score to structure interpretative solutions that are as close as possible to the composer's original ideas, sometimes even seeking such solutions in the history of interpretation. In short, this interview, precisely because the subject was Celibidache, left me with many doubts.

The discussion was explored a bit more here.

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/4021-lezione-di-fenomenolog%C3%ACa-musicale/

He is certainly a character who has caused debate

Celibidache (you don't know how much he used to get on my nerves until recently) knows too much and has studied everything too deeply.

The direct consequence is that, being unable to say everything he should in an interview, he is forced into enormous "omissions," leaving the door wide open to millennial skepticism, resentful criticism, and those who want to add insult to injury.

Socrates was sentenced to death (already seventy years old and a war hero) for the same reason.

Philosophies aside, I would like to invite you to reflect even just on the simple fact that the gentleman in question (as can be seen from various snippets of evidence available on the web) knew by heart, note for note, all the works he conducted.

You could ask him to start at any point simply by indicating the measure number.

Find another one who can do that... He was right when he said: "After me, who will still make music?".

A great one.

To go deeper, I recommend watching this video several times with extreme attention. Here he gives examples and so on....

One should focus especially on the examples he makes at the piano. The key points are from 17:33 onwards. One should start from the concept "music today is made through association". If you understand what he means by this concept, then you have understood Celibidache. (in the other video he only talks about philosophy, whereas here it is about concrete elements in the actual interpretation phase).

What he is trying to say is actually very simple, but precisely because it is simple, it is not easy to grasp. Generally, people get annoyed by his peremptory tone and do not listen to him seriously. For this hour and a half, one must disarm their critical sense regarding his attitudes and try to understand.

Open content (youtube)

TheSimon wrote:

He speaks of superstructures, saying that he tries to forget everything he knows when he has to produce music, whereas on the contrary today we are rooted in the research and study of the score to structure interpretive solutions that are as close as possible to the composer's original ideas, sometimes even seeking such solutions in the history of interpretation. In short, this interview, precisely because the subject was Celibidache, left me with many doubts.

This is not accurate; in fact, it is quite the opposite.

Careful, he *does not deny* that it is possible to make music *instinctively*, and up to a certain point, this has been the case for most, including the greats. In fact, he paid tribute to Franco Ferrara with the title of one of the greatest "instinctive" conductors, sharing the throne with De Sabata.

Celibidache says, "when Franco stepped onto the podium everything worked, *but* he didn't know how to explain *why* it worked". And there is the point.

Celibidache even asserts that everything he says would be "refreshing," and if others did the same, "everyone would find themselves" as they once were. (In fact, he hasn't invented anything new).

In a word, Celibidache says that he is *against the line* (one must first ask oneself: what is this line, finally? Who invented it? Is it spontaneous to apply it to a tonal system? We are already in the application of philosophy, whereas Celibidache is even simpler and more direct) and that this has nothing to do with tonal music. Tonal music, unlike the avant-garde, has an objective dynamic maximum point of expansion and frequencies through which one arrives there. More specifically, he explained to us that resolving notes should be weakened, etc., etc., because they "fold back onto the mother tonality," and he told us *how intervals turn* musically by leaning on the mother tonality, which is the reference point for placing accents and frequencies, the "code."

Now, Celibidache does not intend to go against avant-garde music, but to say that tonal music cannot be treated like avant-garde music.

He tells us rationally what the element is that makes a good interpretation effective.

In fact, in practical application, this is by no means obvious.

Practical example regarding two professionals:

if we channel surf within a magnificent interpretation by Horowitz, and I take into account that musically striking one of Scriabin's Op. 8 no. 12 in the Moscow concert, we notice that he creates an enormous climax starting from pianissimo until exploding at fortissimo before the end at a musically well-defined point.

If we listen to Kissin's, we notice that he plays everything loud without creating any relationship between the repeated phrases. What do they become then in this latter case?

They no longer move the "human consciousness" from the beginning to the end of the piece, but are a "factory" of sensations that have no logical connection of emotional tension (and the increase in emotional tension is given by the increase in volume).

The facts seem clear: how many musical people, remembering this piece, will think positively of Horowitz, and how many of Kissin?

It is logical that if I always play in mezzo-forte, this tension, moreover, I will not have the means to increase it, since the dynamics of an instrument are not infinite to reach ffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. The consciousness feels that something is wrong; it feels it because it is not going perfectly in step with the structural logic of the piece, and it is sensed thanks to the mother tonality upon which everything rests (without which there would be no logical point of reference for our brain).

The question one must ask is indeed: why is there an interpretation that we do not like? Why does it not hold up on that unique code which is tonality (on which the entire structure is based with mechanisms that follow its logic).

To this subtlety, the sensitivity of many conductors today does not reach, being unaccustomed, moreover, to hearing the "natural." And so Celibidache reminds us how music was played in the past.

The conductors whom Celibidache taught had no doubt that the way he suggested was better but... they didn't know how to explain why. And he (tried) to explain exactly this to them.

That would be all.... there are no secrets of metaphysics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPTe1xMB9Uk

Open content (youtube)

Open content (youtube)

It must be taken into consideration that, at the same time, Celibidache did not want to make interpretation a "music of the consciousness," that is, exclusively intellectual and calculated. At most, the opposite.

He maintained that music has an architecture that transcends the composer, time, practices, and traditions.

Once this architecture, this "topology," is respected, the performer is free to move as they see fit.

At that point, the performer should, quoting him directly, "Bring it back to one's own body."

@Mephisto

Thank you for the detailed explanation. You have certainly delved deep into Celibidache; all of this was not coming out of the 2 minutes of the first video.

Anyway, regarding interpretations. There is also an aspect of how they reach us that should not be underestimated.

Record how, which pianos, which tuners. As for period recordings, personally I believe they are more magical, both because of the piano tuning and because of the recording quality which, being less clean, is nonetheless warmer and more cantabile. Nowadays there is an obsession with making everything audible in the smallest detail; the result is certainly clearer, but in my opinion, that magical aura is lost.

Certainly, and it is also important what one listens to the music with... Audio reproduction is in itself almost an art...

(Celibidache, despite having a master's in wave physics, advised going to the theater...)

Today's recordings, apparently clearer, often hide serious digital intermodulation problems that older analog ones did not have.

However, it always depends on who is handling them...

@Simone
I share with you the aesthetic passion for a coloristic style closer to that of the composers… but on this, naturally, many subjective parentheses of C. open up. (Specifically, obviously, so as not to confuse those reading us) namely: time, which depends on acoustics, which is "generator of form" —it is an excellent theoretical notion that nonetheless finds a very personal application, based on the perception of whoever conducts or plays—, color, and other factors upon which it seems to me that—in the other discussion—one had erroneously focused as if it were the main crux of the discourse, whereas they were themes not strictly necessary to explain in the context of "phenomenology," unlike the objective dynamic progression relative to tonality (which is phenomenology itself)..
Essentially, C. had mentioned them to make a distinction between ...
Well, in my opinion, this was a communicative "flaw" of Celibidache: proposing too many concepts that move away from the central point of the discussion; his mistake was that he did not take into account the time needed by the interlocutor to think and properly understand every concept, actually making them forget those mentioned before (it is useless to hide that, in fact, I had to watch his videos a high number of times for everything to emerge; with every analysis, new ideas come out, the fruit of years of reflection from someone who was above all a very profound and scrupulous scholar....).

("Off topic" parenthesis, as they say in jargon, on my part, regarding the fact of unequal tuning - due to a series of scientific clues in my possession, and having had the chance to experiment on myself with the sensations regarding different stimuli, I have strong suspicions to think even that those slight oscillations concretely influence first from a neurological aspect and then on the practical reaction of the performer –that is, an induction to the spontaneity of the subsequent reaction through chemical processes, which are triggered by an instinctive factor of a very well-known theory that would be long to explain, whose origin lies in pre-birth - this is my thesis clearly… like many others, in an area so complex and in some ways still mysterious as the functioning of the brain. I'll take a bit of a gamble too.. )

Celibidache wrote:

It must be taken into consideration that, at the same time, Celibidache did not want to make interpretation a "music of consciousness," i.e., exclusively intellectual and calculated. At most, the opposite.

He maintained that music has an architecture that transcends the composer, time, practices, and traditions.

Once this architecture, this "topology," is respected, the performer is free to move as they see fit.

At that point, the performer should, quoting him directly, "Bring it back to one's own body."

I would state even more precisely the assertion "music happens at a certain moment," meaning that after a long period of analysis, at a certain point the consciousness (or at this point the unconscious), we could quite easily say that it "gets used to" correlating, is taken by an "infinite wisdom" and, to coin one of his expressions, the music "makes itself." It is the moment when spontaneity rushes in, the theory that has apparently been forgotten now "belongs to the past" because it passes into the subconscious....and from that instant on, sensitivity is able to do everything on its own thanks to that wonderful instrument that is the mind

I would also reflect on the fact that there is music written by composers who are still alive and well; in case of doubt, there is always the good old telephone call.

@Tiger
You have the wrong topic.... we artistically appreciate the avant-garde!

Perhaps you did not read carefully or I did not express myself clearly enough.

I quote myself.
Mephistopheles: "Now Celibidache does not intend to go against avant-garde music, but to say that tonal music cannot be treated (interpretatively) like avant-garde music."
(despite the deliberately provocative technique of his language, which can certainly lead one astray).

The error of people who dislike contemporary art is what? To stand in front of a Pollock painting and look at it with the criteria with which they would look at a Michelangelo fresco, or to listen to Stockhausen with the criteria with which they would listen to Chopin.

From an interpretative point of view, from a certain point onward there has been a sharp split of the "medium":
Tonal music: music that is designed to have recognizable logical interconnections consequentially (concretely guided by tonality), it is the representation of reason, of the ego (or human consciousness, if you will).
Atonal music: music that is specifically designed not to have reference points recognizable by the human mind, it is the representation of chaos (to put it very broadly, the crisis of the "ego", inner chaos, the frenzy of daily life, the idea of finding oneself randomly thrown onto planet Earth), in the face of which the listener finds themselves disoriented by the direct will of the composer: there is no tonality to orient them in interpretation. Who am I? Where do I come from? Perhaps from chaos. Illnesses, natural disasters, attacks. And the rest of my existence will therefore be quite random, it is very difficult to predict (but I can see myself well tying tomatoes).

The "mistake" that Celibidache spoke of, "the evil of our times," does not concern composers, nor is it a critique of philosophies, but the performers, who dynamically treat tonal music (in dosing emotional tension) as if these logical interconnections did not exist.

Celibidache makes us understand that even if one wanted to, one cannot play atonal music without the "line," unless following the composer's score "to the letter."
What was the interpretative error instead?
The idea had spread that the cult of the text to the letter had to be applied also to tonal music which, poor thing, had done nothing wrong to be treated like that.

To give a practical example, ignoring the implicit structure in tonal music is a bit like undermining the foundations of a house: everything collapses upon itself. In fact, when modifications are made, the first thing engineers do is tell us where the load-bearing beams are so that they are absolutely not touched.
The performer should do this: know where the load-bearing beams of the music they must make their own are located.

MephistoPheles wrote:

@Simone

I share with you the aesthetic passion for a coloristic style closer to that of the composers… but on this, many subjective parentheses of C. naturally open (the specific one obviously so as not to confuse those reading us) namely: tempo, which depends on acoustics, which is "generator of form" —it is an excellent theoretical notion that nonetheless finds a very personal application, based on the perception of whoever conducts or plays—, color, and other factors upon which it seems to me that—in the other discussion—we erroneously focused as if they were the main crux of the discussion, whereas they were themes not strictly necessary to explain in terms of "phenomenology," unlike the objective dynamic progression relative to tonality (which is phenomenology itself)..

Basically, C. had mentioned them to make the distinction between ...

Well, in my opinion, this was a communicative "defect" of Celibidache: proposing too many concepts that move away from the core point of the discussion; his mistake was that he did not take into account the time needed by the interlocutor to think and properly understand every concept, instead making them forget those mentioned before (it is useless to hide that I actually had to watch his videos a high number of times for everything to emerge; with every analysis, new ideas come out, the fruit of years of reflections from someone who was above all a very profound and scrupulous scholar....).

(An "Off topic" parenthesis, as they say in jargon, on my part, regarding the matter of unequal tuning —due to a series of scientific clues in my possession, and having had the chance to experiment on myself with the sensations regarding different stimuli, I have strong suspicions to think even that those slight oscillations concretely influence things first on a neurological level and then on the practical reaction of the performer—that is, an induction to the spontaneity of the subsequent reaction through chemical processes, which are triggered by an instinctive factor of a very well-known theory that would be long to explain, whose origin lies in pre-birth —this is my thesis clearly… like many others, in a field so complex and in some ways still mysterious as that of brain functioning. I'll take a bit of a gamble too.. )

One of the most beautiful, clear, and intelligent interventions I have read since I put this forum online; thank you, I truly mean it!

Regarding acoustics, I recently listened to an interpretation of "Chopin's Nocturne No. 20 op. post" on a Facebook group that I did not like at all.

The thing I disliked most was the choice of tempo. Among various comments, some agreed with my thinking. The performer's reply was that the tempo had been chosen based on the acoustics of the hall. Well, I believe there are very precise margins within which one cannot stray. Saying "I played at this tempo" because the acoustics were terrible is not a justification. At this point, I wonder if it is right to sacrifice the idea and the indications of a composer in the name of the acoustics of a room. In my opinion, no!! If the room sounds bad, you don't record, and that's the end of the problem. It is no coincidence that all instrumental music is recorded in the famous "music tempos," see Carnegie Hall, but also great recording studios. These are environments tuned to have a very specific reverberation time and they return a certain color to it. You cannot play a nocturne as you would play a rhapsody just in the name of excessive/little reverb in the hall. Are we joking?

Regarding the psychological aspects of the performer in the face of good acoustics and a good piano, I can confirm this 1000% based on my experience.

Acoustics especially plays a fundamental role at a psychological level. If I have to play in an environment with a good amount of reverb, I feel more at ease and am inclined to abandon myself completely to the music; if the piano then has a good timbre, the pairing is complete and it comes naturally to me to make everything more cantabile. If we look closer, it is somewhat like what happens to a singer when they have to record in a studio.

As a rule, singers always request a bit of reverb in their headphones; they feel at ease this way and objectively sing better.

Returning to pianos, however, regardless of recordings, I find that the tuning of concert pianos from 30 years ago was significantly superior to today's. Personally, when I listen to even a single note coming from Horowitz's piano, that sound enchants me. Paolo once explained to me that the tuner deliberately leaves one string slightly flat to generate a slow beat that makes the piano more cantabile. Well, it is a pity that this practice is"}

become obsolete.

Since you have "scientific clues," I would be pleased if you shared them on the forum or even just privately. I am always curious to read treatises from people who have grappled with these topics and to read their demonstrations, especially if they align with what I thought, even though I haven't studied it in depth. Thank you.

Thank you instead, for your commitment to keeping this community available to us; I only regret having very little time to intervene. I want to take this opportunity to also thank the Maestro for the indispensable technical suggestions he has given me over these years.

I completely agree with you. Speed, however personal and subjective, always has a fairly tight temporal coefficient within which one must operate. Especially on repertoires that have an extensive discography, otherwise "the game is not worth the candle." If then it is doubled as if it were a rhapsody, I am by no means biased.
On this subject, I am ideally close to Celibidache, famous for his slow tempos, always slightly below the average coefficient of the piece.
Not without reason he used to say that "slowness is richness." I say "not without reason" for a second reason besides acoustics, which is often ignored. Those who, like you, have cultivated excellent sensitivity and subtle tastes over time have realized the magnificent "world" of harmonics of the "ninth octave," which are generated by sympathy starting from the soundboard of the instrument or the orchestra.
In a faster tempo, this world would become less evident and modulatable; therefore, Celibidache understood that compositions of clearly slow conception (such as the Nocturnes) would have a concrete advantage on the musical result if played a little slower (the beautiful conducting of Mozart's Requiem comes to mind).
Now some, in a very similar way to what has been done with the line, use theoretical knowledge arbitrarily without taking into consideration what happens to the artistic performance. Thus, it is no longer a matter of sensible choices but of blind cultism.
Regarding my simple thesis, there is no secret; the only reason I do not expose myself here is a principle of mine, because I would have to make a premise about the content of certain articles published in prominent scientific journals that could induce some toward too "liberal" attitudes regarding opinion and they could become subject to personal "beliefs," which is the last thing I wish for (I imagine you can understand me). It is not by chance that I used the words "hazard" and "clues." We hope that in these cases the benefit of the doubt is preserved. Perhaps we will speak privately.

https://www.facebook.com/raffaele.napoli1/videos/10208602746998905/

A benefit to those who have little or no familiarity with German, here is the version with Italian subtitles prepared by Maestro Raffaele Napoli in collaboration with M° Dario Macellari.