Most conductors do not choose tempi as if they were holy writ. Yes, Walter worked with Mahler, who was a very flexible conductor, as was the style at that time. Walter started in that style, but evolved his own personal approach over time. In any case, conducting is very much a collaborative art, so one generally adjusts to a singer's needs in performance, as their lung capacities are not all the same.
@Varese52 Thank you for your comment! Slow movements are wonderful when supported by tension, energy, coloration along with well musical thoughts, which is of course the case here (same with Celibidache). Also, Bruno Walter worked with Gustav Mahler not only in studying his compositions but the art of conducting as well. It is why Walter most likely choose this tempo.
Just as a side issue, slower tempi are not, by definition, "self-indulgent, sentimental and(or) pretentious". First of all, slow tempi are harder to sustain than quicker ones. Second, slower tempi sometimes underline musical details that go by too fast to notice in quicker tempi. Third, I am convinced that Walter chose this tempo for this performance because Seefried found it comfortable. I grew up on Kletzki's performance and loved Emmy Loose's rendition. But I also love Horenstein's version.
Bruno Walter certainly doesn't linger over any of the melodies and generally adopts faster tempi than most of today's self-indulgent, sentimental and sometimes pretentious conductors; Bruno Walter was a close friend and disciple of Mahler's. Seefried was a great artist, but I prefer a lighter, more child-like approach from the singer in this movement; I love Emmy Loose with Kletzki and Sylvia Stahlman with Solti/Amsterdam, for example.
Most conductors do not choose tempi as if they were holy writ. Yes, Walter worked with Mahler, who was a very flexible conductor, as was the style at that time. Walter started in that style, but evolved his own personal approach over time. In any case, conducting is very much a collaborative art, so one generally adjusts to a singer's needs in performance, as their lung capacities are not all the same.
Varese52 1 year ago
@Varese52 Thank you for your comment! Slow movements are wonderful when supported by tension, energy, coloration along with well musical thoughts, which is of course the case here (same with Celibidache). Also, Bruno Walter worked with Gustav Mahler not only in studying his compositions but the art of conducting as well. It is why Walter most likely choose this tempo.
embenadorfinearts 1 year ago
No love for the singer? Seefried is as good as you're ever going to hear it.
suffisance 2 years ago
Just as a side issue, slower tempi are not, by definition, "self-indulgent, sentimental and(or) pretentious". First of all, slow tempi are harder to sustain than quicker ones. Second, slower tempi sometimes underline musical details that go by too fast to notice in quicker tempi. Third, I am convinced that Walter chose this tempo for this performance because Seefried found it comfortable. I grew up on Kletzki's performance and loved Emmy Loose's rendition. But I also love Horenstein's version.
Varese52 2 years ago
Bruno Walter certainly doesn't linger over any of the melodies and generally adopts faster tempi than most of today's self-indulgent, sentimental and sometimes pretentious conductors; Bruno Walter was a close friend and disciple of Mahler's. Seefried was a great artist, but I prefer a lighter, more child-like approach from the singer in this movement; I love Emmy Loose with Kletzki and Sylvia Stahlman with Solti/Amsterdam, for example.
billyguns2 2 years ago