to Rozinante

呵呵，改了。谢谢指正。

又单就布交来说,我可以说如下的话。如果你喜欢布交,不管你喜欢不喜欢,你没听切利的,你还没入门。就象富老战时的贝交,如果你没听过,你还不知道山外有更高的山。
Jwang 发表于 2013-2-23 23:58

如此霸气侧漏的语气，走极端的恐怕先是您吧？

说话还是揣着点。只听过那么一点点切利就大谈切利如何如何，您怎么知道别处没有更高的山呢？

奉劝JWANG兄，少花点时间看报纸，多花点时间听您喜欢的切利。您一个号称切利粉的，居然对切利的录音了解还比不上人家看不上切利的，惭愧不惭愧？老拿书本上的评论给自己撑腰，蛮有意思的。

晚期切利说几句就扯倒境界，佛学什么的了，都是些大而化之，个人判断的东西。不可能达成共识。从排练和合作的乐手访谈来看，至少切利对总谱和乐器声音的了解是无可争议的。


还不如多聊一下早期切利。切利带米兰广播的勃拉姆斯，切利手下的马勒之类的。

http://jimdrp.blog.163.com/blog/static/180368091201252993252527/
这套有人听过么？

看来您这位美国人很爱国，别人说不得您家的报纸。动辄要指责别人的器官，我就不敢多说了

这语言如同愤青,下来可扣汉奸帽子了。赞扬NYT是赞他们作为新闻工作者的独立性。知道Wikileaks事件吗?他们顶着美国政府的压力出版Wikileaks泄出机密文件。这就是新闻工作者。

奉劝JWANG兄，少花点时间看报纸，多花点时间听您喜欢的切利。您一个号称切利粉的，居然对切利的录音了解还比不上人家看不上切利的，惭愧不惭愧？老拿书本上的评论给自己撑腰，蛮有意思的。

我无意拿人家的评论为自己撑腰,我也不需要。我们好象只是在讨论一个死去的指挥吧?有必要吗?我这只是偶然看到这文,故转来了。最多就是提供些信息罢了。下面我也提供一篇为你撑腰的文章,如果你认为转载就是为转载者撑腰的话。至于听了两个版本的切利和听四个版本的切利对理解切利的深浅有逻辑上必然的联系吗?你大概没在大学教过书吧?聪明的学生教一边就行了。而有些理解力低下的学生教几十遍都不行。

这里我到是要奉劝你,我们这里只是在讨论对一个指挥的看法,没必要意气用事。

环球时报是人民日报办的，当家人胡锡进之臭名昭著有目共睹。

说到办报，天朝的体制似乎真没啥好根人家比的

这里再转NYT的一篇评论,其中可看到对切利不怎样的评论。

Review/Music; Sergiu Celibidache Conducts An Unhurried Bruckner 4th
By WILL CRUTCHFIELD
Published: April 27, 1989

Sergiu Celibidache demands unheard-of amounts of orchestral rehearsal time and obviously knows what he wants to do with it. He has an extraordinary ear for orchestral detail. He has a highly developed -though, as his second concert with the Munich Philharmonic showed, not infallible - technique for maintaining spacious tempos. He understands, as Herbert von Karajan and Carlos Kleiber and a few other conductors do, that it is advantageous to play softly a lot of the time if you want a wide palette of expression and tonal beauty. He has a charismatic hold over his orchestra and his admirers.

But what does he do with all that? He goes and plays too slow. Bruckner's Fourth Symphony petered out Saturday night at Carnegie Hall, many beautiful details notwithstanding.

The first movement was the best, with some wonderfully inexorable-sounding slow crescendos, the beautifully cultivated dynamic contrasts that are Mr. Celibidache's trademark, and a good deal of eloquent solo wind playing. The first horn covered himself with glory throughout, the first flute was notable for evenness of tone and beauty of phrasing in testing long passages. The brass choir was nothing short of thrilling in this movement; it was an object lesson in how to achieve a stirring fortissimo climax without abandoning beauty of tone or breaking the context of the total orchestral sound. (The might-is-right approach of certain American brass sections is exposed as something other than musical by such a contrast.) But already there were ominous signs that slowness was going to be a value in itself for Mr. Celibidache. The ''etwas gemachlich'' second subject (the instruction could be translated as ''rather comfortably'') lost coherence; secondary material sounded like a main theme. The second movement picked its way through Bruckner's restrained gestures with redoubled restraint and caution. In the third - the famous ''hunting horn'' scherzo, which has the best crescendos ever composed between the ''William Tell'' overture and ''Wozzeck'' - the conductor quite carefully dampened the excitement at the peaks.

And the last movement just died on the vine. By the time it was over, Mr. Celibidache had taken 85 minutes, not counting pauses, to play the symphony. (As a point of reference, Otto Klemperer's late recording takes 61; Giuseppe Sinopoli's, which until Saturday one would have called extremely slow, takes 67.) In the meantime, we learned a lot more about how the conductor could (or occasionally couldn't) control a very slow tempo than what he really thought, if anything, about Bruckner.

Let those who wish hail Mr. Celibidache as some kind of Romantic throwback, and let anyone who can really do it come along and make a revelation with ultra-slow Bruckner that does hold together. For this listener, the Bruckner Fourth confirmed what his brilliant concert with the Curtis Institute student orchestra suggested five years ago: Mr. Celibidache has a rare talent for certain component elements of orchestral performance, a gift for showmanship, an admirable dedication to thoroughness of preparation and a somewhat deficient feeling for music itself, broadly understood.

这篇把Celibidache 评的更不好了。
Reviews/Music; The Mystical Celibidache ConductsBy JOHN ROCKWELLPublished: April 23, 1989

One of the exciting aspects of New York's musical life is the event at which everybody who presumes to be anybody converges to check out the latest sensation. If the sensation happens to be controversial, all the better: then the everybody-anybodies stand around during the intermission and afterwards, when the mere audience is bravoing away, and discuss the concert with gushing enthusiasm, heated animation, bored indifference or cynical disdain.

Friday night was one of those events, when Sergiu Celibidache, the 76-year-old mystical authoritarian who has conducted the Munich Philharmonic for a decade, finally brought that orchestra to New York. The concert was the first of two at Carnegie Hall, part of a three-week North American tour.

Prior to this concert, Mr. Celibidache had conducted only once in the United States - a student ensemble from the Curtis Institute of Philadelphia at Carnegie in 1985. Although he has sanctioned no recordings in his maturity, Mr. Celibidache's fame has spread widely - as the last of the absolutist maestros, as one who insists on four or five times more rehearsals than anyone else, as the end of a mystical line of conductors stretching back through Wilhelm Furtwangler to Richard Wagner, as a mannered eccentric, as a fountain of spiritual pronouncements.

Friday's concert was very odd in several respects, but to this taste its virtues far outweighed its faults. The Munich Philharmonic is a big band, but not a great one; by normal reckonings, it doesn't even match the Bavarian Radio Orchestra in its own home town. Even with scrupulous preparation, the strings sounded thin and the ensemble rough. When it came to minute refinements, if not amplitude and confidence of tonal projection, the Curtis students were often better. Yet the Munich winds and especially the brass sounded first-class.

The second oddity was the program itself, almost a pops affair confined to pieces from the late 19th and early 20th centuries: Ravel's ''Rapsodie Espagnole,'' Richard Strauss's ''Don Juan'' and Ravel's orchestration of Mussorgsky's ''Pictures at an Exhibition.'' (There were no encores, despite long applause during Mr. Celibidache's ponderously choreographed bows by solo players and sections.) Odder still were many of the tempos. Occasionally Mr. Celibidache whipped things forward, but on the whole his tempos ranged from slow to slower. At times the music making sounded like the pianist who, as he learns a score, slows down a passage to pick it apart, only in this case Mr. Celibidache never bothered to speed things up again.

Here and there this almost phlegmatic gravity simply sapped the music of forward propulsion and excitement, or even of the pictorial vividness that was otherwise everywhere apparent. The ''Samuel Goldenberg and Schmuyle'' movement of the ''Pictures'' sounded gorgeous, but was less theatrical in its depiction of the pompous bourgeois and the wheedling opportunist than other performances have been.

To doubters, all this must have added up to mere self-indulgence. Anyone could get those results with that much rehearsal, some have complained. Others lament the willful distortion of the composer's intentions as stated in the scores and especially in the tempo indications.

And yet: Most of us regret the passage of the great Romantic performers of the past. But when one comes along, like some thawed-out dinosaur long frozen in a block of ice, we tend to reject him from the secure bastion of our clean-and-tidy modernist esthetic. For Mr. Celibidache, speed is not the only path to excitement: the subtle gradations of tension through exactly sculpted detail can achieve the same results.

Maybe other conductors could indeed achieve his remarkable sonic effects - most of which are specifically indicated in the scores, by the way. But the fact is, they don't - either out of habit, or a (perhaps false) belief that too much rehearsal kills spontaneity, or a simple capitulation to economic compromise.

Just as the Munich Philharmonic is not the world's greatest orchestra, Sergiu Celibidache is not the world's greatest conductor. But that doesn't make him the world's worst, or anyone else the best. He's just an extraordinarily fascinating musician whose performances - the charged teasing of the ''Rapsodie,'' the surging sexuality of the Strauss and the miracles of orchestral elegance in the Mussorgsky - will linger in the memory for a lifetime.

Sergiu Celibidache (The New York Times/Sal DiMarco Jr.)

怎么来情绪了？别啊，不就一个切尼吗，喜欢就喜欢，不喜欢就不喜欢罢了，有啥好来情绪的？扭屁股版跟Jwang版握个手一笑了之好了，J兄的鉴别力我一点不怀疑，个人情趣谁能没有呢？就像我极其讨厌臭豆腐一样，可喜欢的人不正是逐此臭而嗅其香吗？人不喜切尼之处正是我之所喜，这谁能左右得了呢？世界有这么多可资选择的自由是你我他的福分，为这个也得握手言欢啊，没必要不喜切尼却用上了切大炮的嘴功是不？

我想桂猪兄的意思是他的指挥没有对比和戏剧张力吧？我觉得他在逻辑层面是很立体的；感情层面确实比较单一。
Rozinante 发表于 2013-2-25 01:45

好久没和瘦马兄交流了！
我对切利的看法大体都在下面。概括地说，就是他的音乐没有“实体”。

音乐是启示的世界，音乐体验是神秘体验。“神秘”（威廉·詹姆斯《宗教经验之种种》“神秘主义”）的第一个标志是“不可言说性”，即“不可言传，不能用语言贴切地报告它的内容”，第二个标志是“可知性”，即置身“洞见真理的状态”，“这些状态是洞明，是启示，虽然完全超乎言说，却充满着意蕴和重要”。“任何心态，如果有了这两种特性，都有资格称之为神秘的”。门德尔松说：“一首我喜爱的乐曲对我表达的思想是不能用文字来说明的。这不是因为音乐太不具体，而是因为它太具体了。”音乐拥有“实体”，与虚无缥缈参商有殊。音乐的制作应以呈现“实体”为基础。

音乐创作和体验的过程可以用“受胎告知”来象征。圣母既看不到天使也听不见天使，“受胎”的讯息是依灵魂获知。比之音乐，“受胎”即获知“实体”，接受“启示”。“音乐见证了造物主造人的神圣过程”（布鲁诺·瓦尔特），音乐围绕“有”的诞生，高级演绎呈现这一过程。

有“实体”，音乐就一定能立起来。作品犹如“移步换景”一般在不同“实体”之间变幻腾挪，直至结束，这个过程是音乐见证“无中生有”的过程，因而出来的音乐必然是生动的、多变的、立体的、有价值的。

切利的制作缺乏“实体”，显得僵化、脆弱。切利说音乐不是美，美只是音乐的诱饵，音乐是真，这话完全没错。“美”是音乐之美，“真”应是音乐的“实体”，但他呈现的“真”，却是一个模具。有“实体”的音乐和演奏，通向无限可能，切利的美学与创作和制作的弹性格格不入，增一分或减一分，影响很大，他要不断排练来实现那细如发丝的“对”，他无法测知音乐表现的弹性空间到底有多大。

切利的制作缺乏认识价值，我们欣赏到的基本上都可以算是技术之美。音乐被连根拔起，漂浮无依。

切利的世界一蹴即至。

好久没和瘦马兄交流了！
我对切利的看法大体都在下面。概括地说，就是他的音乐没有“实体”。 ...
桂猪 发表于 2013-2-25 21:02

桂猪兄这一大段说得很棒！有些地方以后还要慢慢琢磨。

基本观点我觉得我是理解的，也同意：音乐应该是既极其抽象、又极其具体的。切利那些完美的对位、转合只是呈现了一个抽象的“模具”，是技术层面上的。仅凭这些不足以成就一位伟大的音乐家。

这一点我倒觉得他和古尔德非常相似，都是对作品的逻辑结构把握到极致。尽管这俩人一个只现场，一个只录音，看似格格不入。

但我又隐约觉得他们的音乐并不是没有“实体”，只不过他们的“实体”和别人的“实体”是完全不一样的。就像古尔德呈现的不是巴赫的浩瀚深邃，而是他自己的现代迷宫一样。如果切利真的只是玩儿技术玩儿到这把年纪，想必他会无聊死的。

呵呵，随口胡说。我可真是没听过几张切利，正慢慢听呢。