Sometimes one reads an article that is really infuriating from the point of view of its lack of argument. One that I came across recently was 'The Death of the Horenstein cult?' This claims 'Listeners who take the time and trouble to make the necessary
comparisons may well come to the conclusion that [Jascha] Horenstein’s work is
simply inferior.' It claims: 'The point is not to dump on Horenstein; he was one of many mediocre
conductors who did some good work, and lots of bad, as evidenced by far
too many surviving recordings.'
No serious argument is made for this in the article, which has an unusually high ratio of unsubstantiated assertions to facts, except that: 'performances of the Third such as Levine’s, Haitink’s, and Mehta’s
offered a level of sheer technical mastery, whatever one thought of
interpretative details, that Horenstein couldn’t approach. When his
rendition finally was transferred to CD, listeners discovered that its
sonics were quite inferior (as opposed to Bernstein’s Sony recording,
for example, which sounded better than ever).'
So apparently inferior recording quality may damn an interpretation - which certainly puts Toscanini or Furtwangler in their place. Or perhaps it is less polished orchestral performance which is involved? And few would claim that the Vienna Symphony Orchestra, with which Horenstein made his first recording of Mahler's 9th Symphony for example is on the level of the Berlin Philarmonic.
But Horenstein's Mahler, and indeed most of the regrettably far too few recordings he left of other composers, is outstanding for its clarity and articulation - at the opposite end of the spectrum to Karajan's moulded textures for example. In a composer who utilises counterpoint as much as Mahler this is a vast advantage. Similarly Horenstein has the ultimate ability of a great conductor to integrate the long line of a work - that is to see the relation of the details and the whole. Listen to the first movement of his Mahler 9th to get the point, or the last movement of his Mahler 1st and 3rd symphonies.
As for orchestral sound it is one of the chief points expounded on this blog that a work of art exists only in its actualisation - there is no 'spirit' of a work of art separate from its actual existence. But Mahler is one of the composers for whom the realistic, which includes the grotesque and the badly formed as well as the beautiful and the sublime, is most present in the music. In line with the other composer who is increasingly regarded as Mahler's rival for the title of greatest composer of the 20th century, Shostakovich, biting scherzos, grotesque marches and the like are integral to the music as they are integral to life. There are certainly parts of Mahler in which beauty of sound is crucial but he is not a composer for which this is the most important feature.
As for the 'death of the cult,' just so people can see the above is not simply my opinion, in the last three years BBC Record Review has made three recordings by Horenstein its number one choice.These are Bruckner's 9th Symphony (13 January 2007), Simpson's 3rd Symphony (21 October 2006), and Mahler's Das Leid von der Erde.(26 September 2009). The BBC reviewers are scarcely a fringe cult - although actually my view is that there are superior performances of Das Leid von der Erde to Horenstein's and I would start with his Mahler 1st, 3rd or 9th Symphonies!
I get anything conducted by Horenstein available. He was one of the greatest conductors of the 20th century. Anyone who considers he is just a 'cult' should see the BBC's recommendations. Or read the reviews on Amazon.
