| Chapter 1: | Conducting in Theory and Practice |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
When one turns one’s attention to the way the piece has grown, the way one passage has evolved into another in logical sequence, and when one thus comes to see more and more of the composer’s creative vision of the work in toto, then, and only then, will all the separate parts be seen in their true function, arranged in their proper order, with their own character and flavour.27
Although Furtwängler is considered the antithesis of Toscanini with regard to interpretation, his approach appears objective in its attempt to “see the composer’s vision” vis-à-vis the score. To this extent, his approach is positivist.
Whilst in Furtwängler’s case, the formulation of the T-interpretation appears objective in its intent, the P-interpretation gives way to musical instinct. This is confirmed by Yehudi Menuhin, who writes,
He [Furtwängler] rejected method, metronomic vigour, the weights and measures of musical grocery, to rely on intuition and dream his way through the scores. Happily intuition did not lead him astray; it was shaped by the music it was shaping. His performances were never twice the same, as his recordings show: each time he surrendered himself to the river which might have changed since he was there last—perhaps it was spring and the river in spate with melted snow, perhaps a dry summer had reduced it to a trickle, or a sudden thunderstorm set the water racing.28
Nevertheless, Furtwängler’s interpretation is, for his part, derived from the score. Perhaps this is what Menuhin means by claiming that Furtwängler’s intuition “was shaped by the music it was shaping”.