The Recorded Heritage of Willem Mengelberg and Its Aesthetic Relevance
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright 2014 Samir Ghiocel Golescu THE RECORDED HERITAGE OF WILLEM MENGELBERG AND ITS AESTHETIC RELEVANCE BY SAMIR GHIOCEL GOLESCU DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts in Music with a concentration in Performance and Literature in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2014 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Professor William Kinderman, Chair Professor Ian Hobson Associate Professor Sherban Lupu Assistant Professor Katherine Syer ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the art and interpretative aesthetics of the Dutch conductor Willem Mengelberg (1871-1951), as preserved in his sound recordings and, subsidiarily, in his writings. Emphasis is given to issues pertaining to 19th century performance practice, as well as to historical connections between Mengelberg and compositional/interpretative trends in Europe at the time. Mengelberg’s impact on musical life in Amsterdam, New York, and beyond will be considered. The relevance of Mengelberg’s recordings is assessed from both a documentary and aesthetic point of view. The quasi-entirety of Mengelberg’s rich body of recordings has been consulted, yet a few dozens of them have been chosen for an in-depth study meant to illuminate both their historical context and their contemporary relevance. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with gratitude that I acknowledge the help and support of the committee members, particularly long-time University of Illinois mentors Ian Hobson and William Kinderman, as well as previous mentors and close musical friends such as Florica Nitzulescu, Ioan Welt, Elena Andriescu, Isabelle Belance-Zank, Hubert Wendel, and Sergei Pavlov. I am indebted to Ingrid Ilinca for her help and support. Music collectors such as Hubert Wendel, Gustavo Millozzi, René Trémine, Myriam Scherchen, Victor Eskenasy, Richard Garmise, Simon Roberts, Fritz Zwart, Frank Forman, Dan Koren, Simon Clark, Michael Yugovich, Ernst Lumpe, Farhan Malik, Francis Crociata generously provided recordings and/or corroborating background material. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter I. Tchaikovsky’s Translator ............................................................................................................ 16 Chapter II. Mengelberg’s Brahms ............................................................................................................... 50 Chapter III. Piano Concertos ....................................................................................................................... 79 Chapter IV. Amsterdam’s Own Beethoven ............................................................................................... 105 Chapter V. Objectivity and Subjectivity in Interpretation ......................................................................... 129 Willem Mengelberg: a Discography .......................................................................................................... 148 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 179 iv INTRODUCTION The Dutch conductor Willem Mengelberg (1871-1951) is an important and provocative yet underestimated figure in the history of musical interpretation. He was a pianist and composer, but it was his work as a symphonic conductor par excellence that channeled an overwhelming percentage of his creative energies, and consequently his legacy as conductor that looms largest for us today. While having a sizable non-Dutch conducting career – with partial tenures in Frankfurt and New York and a plethora of guest conducting concerts all over the European music world – Mengelberg’s main claim to aesthetic importance, if not immortality, derives from his having overseen the creation of one of the great orchestras of the world (the Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam), and having led it in a tenure of almost unparalleled length and perhaps unmatched brilliance.1 These high technical standards coexisted with a vivid interest in repertoire of various styles and times, as well as with an ability to communicate detailed, highly personalized interpretative insights which is rare among conductors. During his pre-World War II musical and social life, Mengelberg was incomparably more celebrated than criticized, was known as the most popular figure in Holland after the Queen, and 1 Mengelberg didn’t literally establish the orchestra himself. Its first conductor for seven years (1888-1895) was Willem Kes. Mengelberg was barely 20 years of age when appointed as General Music Director in Lucerne, Switzerland. Starting at the age of 24, he became the one responsible for moving the Amsterdam premier symphonic orchestra from something marginal in European music life to star status, equal in professionalism and prestige to ensembles such as Berliner Philharmoniker, Gewandhaus Leipzig, Dresden Staatskapelle, and the Wiener Philharmoniker. Mengelberg led the Concertgebouw Orchestra for nearly fifty years, 1895-1944. Ernest Ansermet with Orchestre de la Suisse Romande, Zubin Mehta with Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Evgeny Mravinsky in Leningrad, Takashi Asahina in Osaka, and Eugene Ormandy in Philadelphia are among the very few well-known conductors challenging or barely surpassing Mengelberg’s record in Amsterdam. By coincidence, Sir Henry Wood’s tenure with the BBC Prom concerts, lasted from… 1895 to 1944. 1 invested himself in a bouquet of close friendships with many great musicians of the time. His post-WWII and posthumous fortunes declined on two accounts: the perceptions of his art as old- fashioned, overly Romantic and subjective, on the one hand, and accusations of his having collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of Holland, on the other. Sometimes these two reasons were mixed in a pernicious confusion, blending the notion of conservative musical tastes with fascist, if not downright Nazi, politics. It is misleading, however, to regard Mengelberg as overly conservative, since he was quite involved with the music of his own time.2 We shall deal with the first issues in detail. Regarding the accusations of collaborationism, this is not our focus. Nevertheless, let us consider this issue succinctly before we turn to the main subjects of this dissertation. That there are questionable things about Mengelberg’s activities during the Nazi occupation cannot be denied. He was never a dissident, rather someone reflexively used to not challenge government, or administrative authorities in general. He did not seek or accept political positions during the Nazi occupation.3 It is not known that Mengelberg would have benefitted from the Nazi occupiers or would have ever attempted to harm anybody on the basis of their ethnicity or political fragility; on the contrary.4 As in Furtwängler’s case, his prodigious career hardly needed politically-motivated enhancement.5 Unlike Furtwängler though, 2 There is no other conductor born as early as Mengelberg or earlier to have conducted as much 20th century music as Mengelberg did. While Mengelberg could overestimate the gift of some composers (Ernest Schelling, for instance), his taste was nevertheless visionary. Among composers stubbornly promoted by him, if not always commercially recorded, one counts not only Mahler and R. Strauss, but also young Dutch composers, Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Enescu, Hindemith, even Krenek, all of whom were born after Mengelberg. Considering his generational placement, Mengelberg was at the same time a “guardian of tradition” and a pioneer of modernist taste. 3 As, regrettably, a musician as talented as Alfred Cortot did, in France. 4 One uncorroborated exception among many sources we’ve consulted is Igor Markevitch’s memoir, where he conveys allegations which don’t go beyond simple gossip. (Être et avoir été, pp. 270-272) 5 A young Austrian conductor, Herbert von Karajan, who voluntarily joined the Nazi Party, long before the Anschluss - not once but twice - comes to mind. 2 Mengelberg never protested publicly Nazi abuses.6 He did assist though not only famous Jewish musicians asking for his help, such as the professor and violinist Carl Flesch,7 but also at least some of the anonymous, ostracized Jewish members of his Amsterdam orchestra, the ensemble he dedicated his life to. He did treat occupying authorities with deferent, submissive manners of communications. Outwardly, Mengelberg displayed scant signs of distress in response to virulent German expansionism. He continued to conduct consistently, perhaps enthusiastically, in Germany, in countries allied with Germany, and even in countries occupied by the Nazis (which Furtwängler refused to do). He was photographed, in a seemingly friendly context, with Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Holland’s Reichskommissar. At the very least, Mengelberg could be suspected of a certain degree of opportunism, political naïveté, cowardice or some combination of the three. On the other hand, the profound image of Mengelberg before World War II is anything but that of a far right sympathizer. Suggestions to the contrary, unless thoroughly substantiated, would be deeply unfair. There are not documented instances of Mengelberg showing anti- Semitism, but very much the opposite. Mengelberg was not only Mahler’s close and faithful friend, but also Mahler’s most fervent early proponent as an interpreter,