# Klemperer vs Furtwängler



## flamencosketches

These are two German conductors of undeniably titanic stature, almost exact contemporaries, with Klemperer being a few months older. Both are renowned for their interpretive touch and idiosyncratic approach to conducting, but I think that is where the similarities end. Klemperer is known well for his Mahler, Mozart, Brahms, Bruckner, etc. Furtwängler, as far as I can tell, is known well for his Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, etc. 

Do you have a preference between the two? Is either of these two giants your favorite conductor? Do you think either or both of them are overrated (or underrated)? In which composers or works does each excel?

Speaking personally, I'm quite unfamiliar with both, having heard only a couple of recordings by each. For Klemperer, I've heard and really enjoyed his Brahms German Requiem, and his Mozart 40th and 41st symphonies. His Mozart 40th I think is the best I've heard, even though I generally like quicker tempos with this one. I have his Mahler Das Lied von der Erde with Fritz Wunderlich and Christa Ludwig, but I haven't heard it yet. 

As for Furtwängler, I've heard his Brahms 1st symphony with the NDR Orchestra and really enjoyed it. I've also heard parts of his Tristan und Isolde, thought it was amazing, and a recording he did of Beethoven's Eroica (I think with the Berlin Philharmonic, sometime in the 1950s, I believe?)

Both are about equal in my book. Couldn't choose one or the other at this stage.


----------



## paulbest

Furtwangler was one very gifted conductor. 
I 've heard Klemperer's Philharmonia's recordings.
Not the same level. But then some love Celibidache's sluggish tempos. 

The one thing which holds Furtwangler back , is the very poor recorded sound. Had we Furtwangler in DDD, well engineered micing in the recordings, you would know who is the superior of the 2. 
Furtwangler, Knappertsbusch and Keilberth are in my opinion, germany's 3 finest conductors, 
Bruno Walter I consider more American/german conductor and was the greatest American conductor.


----------



## bigshot

Furtwangler was impulsive, his interpretations were inspired and he didn't follow any formula. Klemperer's was a style... he chose to present things monumental. It was his taste. They are quite different conductors. If you want to compare, Furtwangler was more like Stokowski, and Klemperer was more like Celibidache (as paulbest pointed out)


----------



## amfortas

Among German conductors, Furtwängler stands out. His name doesn't begin with a "K."


----------



## Manxfeeder

bigshot said:


> They are quite different conductors.


They are different, but what is notable about both of them is that I find myself at times saying, "What is he doing?" and then following it with, "Oh, I didn't see that coming."


----------



## bigshot

Manxfeeder said:


> They are different, but what is notable about both of them is that I find myself at times saying, "What is he doing?" and then following it with, "Oh, I didn't see that coming."


That's the job of the conductor. They aren't reading notes off a sheet of paper, they're bringing them to life.


----------



## Manxfeeder

bigshot said:


> That's the job of the conductor. They aren't reading notes off a sheet of paper, they're bringing them to life.


True. But those two tend to put more into the music than is actually there, which, depending in a person's outlook, is either art or desecration.


----------



## DavidA

Both of them represent an outdated style but some of their recordings are certainly worth hearing.


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> Both of them represent an outdated style but some of their recordings are certainly worth hearing.


Do you think the art of conducting has been improved on since their heyday? Who, in your eyes, represents the contemporary style of conducting in exemplary fashion?

Really enjoying these responses. I now see I placed this thread in the wrong subforum. If a mod sees this, I'd appreciate if this could be moved to the Musicians forum.


----------



## Itullian

I love them both.
They conduct with FEELING and are always interesting.
Along with Bernstein, Walter and Giulini they are my favorite conductors.


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> Both of them represent an outdated style but some of their recordings are certainly worth hearing.


Greatness is never out of style.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Do you think the art of conducting has been improved on since their heyday? Who, in your eyes, represents the contemporary style of conducting in exemplary fashion?
> 
> .


I think more recent conductors have taken more trouble to investigate and implement the sort of performances the composers intended, things like the size of orchestra and the balance of the instruments, the speeds and the articulation. A good example which I very much like is the recent release of Brahms by Thomas Zehetmair.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> These are two German conductors of undeniably titanic stature, almost exact contemporaries, with Klemperer being a few months older. Both are renowned for their interpretive touch and idiosyncratic approach to conducting, but I think that is where the similarities end. Klemperer is known well for his Mahler, Mozart, Brahms, Bruckner, etc. Furtwängler, as far as I can tell, is known well for his Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert, Brahms, Bruckner, etc.
> 
> Do you have a preference between the two? Is either of these two giants your favorite conductor? Do you think either or both of them are overrated (or underrated)? In which composers or works does each excel?
> 
> Speaking personally, I'm quite unfamiliar with both, having heard only a couple of recordings by each. For Klemperer, I've heard and really enjoyed his Brahms German Requiem, and his Mozart 40th and 41st symphonies. His Mozart 40th I think is the best I've heard, even though I generally like quicker tempos with this one. I have his Mahler Das Lied von der Erde with Fritz Wunderlich and Christa Ludwig, but I haven't heard it yet.
> 
> As for Furtwängler, I've heard his Brahms 1st symphony with the NDR Orchestra and really enjoyed it. I've also heard parts of his Tristan und Isolde, thought it was amazing, and a recording he did of Beethoven's Eroica (I think with the Berlin Philharmonic, sometime in the 1950s, I believe?)
> 
> Both are about equal in my book. Couldn't choose one or the other at this stage.


The one who is normally opposed to Furtwangler isn't Klemperer, it's Toscanini. Toscanini's Brahms, especially the earlier recordings, is very special. Toscanini stands to Furtwangler as Solti stands to Karajan.

Another conductor who I think is well worth exploring from olden times is Mengelberg.

Putting aside opera Furtwangler's strong composers were Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner. Klemperer's were Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mozart and Mahler.


----------



## Becca

What is not often realized these days is that in his younger days, Klemperer was a very strong proponent of modern music particularly during his years at the Kroll Opera in Berlin. It was only in his last 15-20 years that he became the grand old man of the central European repertoire.

P.S. Don't forget Klemperer's Wagner.


----------



## Itullian

^^^^I also remember seeing a video here where Klemperer's take on a Beethoven or Brahms symphony was closer to the composer's intention than the modern conductors


----------



## Itullian

Mandryka said:


> The one who is normally opposed to Furtwangler isn't Klemperer, it's Toscanini. Toscanini's Brahms, especially the earlier recordings, is very special. Toscanini stands to Furtwangler as Solti stands to Karajan.
> 
> Another conductor who I think is well worth exploring from olden times is Mengelberg.
> 
> Putting aside opera Furtwangler's strong composers were Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner. Klemperer's were Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mozart and Mahler.


To me, Bernstein is the anti Karajan, not Solti.
Solti was a Toscanini disciple and I think Karajan is more Toscanini than Furtwangler.


----------



## Itullian

The "soul men" as I call them were not so much concerned with how many beats to the bar but what the music is trying to say.

Toscanini conducted what's on the page.
Furty, Bernstein, etc conducted what's in the heart.


----------



## bigshot

DavidA said:


> Both of them represent an outdated style but some of their recordings are certainly worth hearing.


Michelangelo is outdated compared to Jeff Koons too.


----------



## paulbest

bigshot said:


> Furtwangler was impulsive, his interpretations were inspired and he didn't follow any formula. Klemperer's was a style... he chose to present things monumental. It was his taste. They are quite different conductors. If you want to compare, Furtwangler was more like Stokowski, and Klemperer was more like Celibidache (as paulbest pointed out)


Excellent insights offered here.

Bringing in Stokowski as comparable to Furtwangler's skills was accurate. 
As a testimony to Stokowski's skills and wizardry, listen to his Sibelius 1st sym/ /National SO/1976, Sure Berglund is outstanding,,,yet this Stokowski/National is just something unique and special. Stokowski must have had his eye on that work and felt a special connection to it. He had the forces needed to carry out this performance.


----------



## paulbest

Itullian said:


> I love them both.
> 
> Along with Bernstein, Walter and Giulini they are my favorite conductors.


I have issues with these 3 names in one sentence.

Bernstein's conducting I do not know, very well., as most of his records are composers I am not much at all interested. Guilini was not in the same class as Bruno Walter, who was the greatest conductor is USA history.

Walter and Furtwangler are on the very same level. As far as Mozart and Beethoven. Someone over at YT noted Walter's tempos in Mahler, that he took the Adagio as if a Allegro


----------



## paulbest

Mandryka said:


> The one who is normally opposed to Furtwangler isn't Klemperer, it's Toscanini. Toscanini's Brahms, especially the earlier recordings, is very special. Toscanini stands to Furtwangler as Solti stands to Karajan.
> 
> Another conductor who I think is well worth exploring from olden times is Mengelberg.
> 
> .


Toscanini ?
Better off forgotten
Mengelburg?

He gave the young Dutch composer, Vermeulen a very rough time, dissing his 1st sym, when present to the german stodgy conductor Mengelburg. Mengelburg is best forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthijs_Vermeulen


----------



## bigshot

What does how he got along with a specific composer have to do with whether he is a good conductor?

The main difference between old school conductors and modern ones is that in the old days, a performance was ephemeral. Conductors were free to experiment, and if something didn't work, they just never did that any more. There was more freedom and the conductor was seen as an equal partner in the music making.

Today, conductors are hide bound by appropriateness. They don't take chances. They try to improve by polishing details instead of experimenting with the large things. This is good because most performances are consistent, but it is also bad because most performances are consistent.

Personally, I like seeing artists take risks and try new things. Those are the conductors that fans today say are obsolete.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> The one who is normally opposed to Furtwangler isn't Klemperer, it's Toscanini. Toscanini's Brahms, especially the earlier recordings, is very special. Toscanini stands to Furtwangler as Solti stands to Karajan.
> 
> Another conductor who I think is well worth exploring from olden times is Mengelberg.
> 
> Putting aside opera Furtwangler's strong composers were Beethoven, Brahms and Bruckner. Klemperer's were Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mozart and Mahler.


Sure, but I've already read the Toscanini vs Furtwängler debate many times over. I haven't heard much of Toscanini, but I really like his Beethoven. I'm going to get his 1939 Beethoven cycle with the NBC SO at some point. I would say that I like his Beethoven more than Furtwängler's, but both are great.

Interesting that your analogy compares Furtwängler to Karajan, weren't they arch rivals for a time?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Both lent a feeling of weight and gravity to the music you don't often hear today. But whereas with Furtwangler everything was very intentional, with Klemperer it all just sort of happened. Furtwangler thought through everything he did, wrote about it, and talked to the orchestra. He was a philosopher. Klemperer simply conducted with a sort of intuitive naturalness.

Both of them eschewed vanity. The exact opposite of Karajan, who was all about slickness.

When I want to hear precise articulation, I listen to Toscanini and Reiner. 

When I want to hear beautiful sounds, I listen to Karajan. 

When I want to hear music, I listen to Furtwangler and Klemperer.


----------



## Becca

In all fairness to Karajan, that wasn't really the case in the 1950's.

P.S. I would add Giulini, at least up through his Los Angeles years, in the same group as Furtwangler & Klemperer. It must have been an 'interesting' experience for the Chicago musicians during the years when Giulini was active there along with Solti - talk about two very different approaches to music-making.


----------



## Triplets

Klemperer’s early recordings are eye openers in that they are swifter and more incisive than his older self


----------



## Manxfeeder

paulbest said:


> Toscanini ?
> Better off forgotten


I respect your opinion, but Beethoven, Symphony No. 3, 10/28/39, should not be forgotten.


----------



## Mandryka

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Both lent a feeling of weight and gravity to the music you don't often hear today. But whereas with Furtwangler everything was very intentional, with Klemperer it all just sort of happened. Furtwangler thought through everything he did, wrote about it, and talked to the orchestra. He was a philosopher. Klemperer simply conducted with a sort of intuitive naturalness.
> 
> Both of them eschewed vanity. The exact opposite of Karajan, who was all about slickness.
> 
> When I want to hear precise articulation, I listen to Toscanini and Reiner.
> 
> When I want to hear beautiful sounds, I listen to Karajan.
> 
> When I want to hear music, I listen to Furtwangler and Klemperer.


You're thinking of DG BPO Karajan I think, though even there in opera, and especially in Strauss, he did some wonderful things. What you say doesn't do justice to Karajan's output as a whole.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> Interesting that your analogy compares Furtwängler to Karajan, weren't they arch rivals for a time?


To me the Karajan VPO Brahms requiem sounds so much like Furtwangler, the one with Hotter and Schwarzkopf, that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they consulted about it.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I would say that I like his Beethoven more than Furtwängler's, but both are great.


The 1944 Eroica and 1943 Symphony 4, for example, Furtwangler, are worth checking out.


----------



## Mandryka

Triplets said:


> Klemperer's early recordings are eye openers in that they are swifter and more incisive than his older self


The problem with the very slow ones for me isn't the slowness per se, it's that I can sense that the singers don't feel comfortable. A prime example is Cosi fan Tutte, which has a truly stellar cast, maybe the best lineup ever for that opera, and Klemperer has ideas which are original and inspired.

He can do it successfully with just his own orchestra to manage, like the Philharmonia Mahler 7 - which is mad really but nevertheless worth hearing. Once.

The more I listen to Klemperer the more I think that the place he was at his most consistently great is, bizarrely, in Mozart! I wonder what the people here think of Furtwangler's Mozart - the late Gran Partita for example, which I've been listening to this afternoon, with mixed feelings


----------



## flamencosketches

Klemperer's Mozart is amazing. I would say that's where he's at his best too. One of these days I'll get that EMI Klemperer box set with all those Mozart symphonies.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I love Furtwangler’s gran partita. He was best in Symphony No 40 and Don Giovanni, both my favorite versions of those works. His Haydn 88 is also excellent


----------



## Mandryka

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I love Furtwangler's gran partita.


Yes I'm sure you do.

Just listening again, not to the emi transfer in the pic I posted but to Ward Marston's on Naxos, I'd say it's quite a revelation, much better. Thanks for prompting me to investigate the performance a bit more.


----------



## Becca

Regarding Klemperer's Mozart, I recommend the Klemperer/Civil Horn Concerti. Definitely up there with the classic Karajan/Brain recording which is anything but slick.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't think it's a viable comparison because of recording technology, as Paul Best said back in post #2.

The Furtwangler I'm interested in supposedly had bombs going off in the background. Can someone identify that one?


----------



## premont

deleted post...


----------



## premont

Becca said:


> Regarding Klemperer's Mozart, I recommend the Klemperer/Civil Horn Concerti. Definitely up there with the classic Karajan/Brain recording which is anything but slick.


Precisely this one stands for me as the best Mozart recording he made of the ones, I have heard, which doesn't include the Gran Partita or the operas.. But generally I think he was best in Beethoven and Brahms. I would even like to draw attention to his monumental recordings of Tchaikovsky's 4th, 5th and 6th symphony as well Dvorak's 9th.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I do think it important to point out that I can’t think of a single recording of a particular piece where I prefer the best available Klemperer version to the best available Furtwangler. Not a single case. I find that Furtwangler probes deeper and fleshes more out of the score. But of course Furt also did not record Mahler, which is my favorite of Klemperer’s repertoire.

That’s not to say I don’t esteem Klemperer highly. His live Beethoven recordings on Testament are fantastic. But I still turn to live Furtwangler on Tahra or Music & Arts for the deeper experience. I prefer both to either Toscanini or Karajan.

I don’t like Klemperer’s Brahms quite as much. I could do with more flexibility. Here he is more a peer of Karajan. But Furtwangler is on another level.


----------



## paulbest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I love Furtwangler's gran partita. He was best in Symphony No 40 and Don Giovanni, both my favorite versions of those works. His Haydn 88 is also excellent


Furtwangler in Mozart's operas?
I might say, with some slight reservations, the finest on record.

I doubt his sym 40 passes Walter/Columbia's.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Manxfeeder said:


> I respect your opinion, but Beethoven, Symphony No. 3, 10/28/39, should not be forgotten.


It was a very good performance of the 3rd.


----------



## paulbest

paulbest said:


> I doubt his sym 40 passes Walter/Columbia's.


Well I am not always right. 
Neither completely wrong. 
The sound is poor, the orch rides a bit rough shop over some more delicate passages. 
Its too aggressive for me to like it. 
Yet if we had this in DD sound,,,better, still too aggressive.

Walter's Columbia orch knows how to finely chisel the lines with more precision and finesse.

Mozart requires above all, Finesse-ness


----------



## flamencosketches

Seems near unanimous: Klemperer was never the conductor that Furtwängler was. This raises a further question, is Klemperer overrated? Is he undeserving of his position in the pantheon of immortal conductors? Do people mistake his sludgy tempi for solemnity or profundity, when in reality he's just sticking to the formula (à la Karajan...?)...? Are these uninformed questions an insult to poor Klemperer's legacy, or am I only speaking thoughts that we've all been thinking, but are too afraid to ask? 

I don't have the answers to these questions...


----------



## jegreenwood

flamencosketches said:


> Seems near unanimous: Klemperer was never the conductor that Furtwängler was. This raises a further question, is Klemperer overrated? Is he undeserving of his position in the pantheon of immortal conductors? Do people mistake his sludgy tempi for solemnity or profundity, when in reality he's just sticking to the formula (à la Karajan...?)...? Are these uninformed questions an insult to poor Klemperer's legacy, or am I only speaking thoughts that we've all been thinking, but are too afraid to ask?
> 
> I don't have the answers to these questions...


I don't know either. I just know that I like his Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## Becca

flamencosketches said:


> Seems near unanimous: Klemperer was never the conductor that Furtwängler was. This raises a further question, is Klemperer overrated? Is he undeserving of his position in the pantheon of immortal conductors? Do people mistake his sludgy tempi for solemnity or profundity, when in reality he's just sticking to the formula (à la Karajan...?)...? Are these uninformed questions an insult to poor Klemperer's legacy, or am I only speaking thoughts that we've all been thinking, but are too afraid to ask?
> *
> I don't have the answers to these questions*...


There are no answers to those questions, it is all personal opinion subject to change without notice.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Klemperer's interpretations have nearly always given me greater satisfaction than Furtwangler's.


----------



## Larkenfield

I consider them two of the greatest conductors who ever lived. What does it matter who is better if one is interested in Mahler and Furtwangler never recorded him but Klemperer did? You have to look at what they recorded, and Furtwangler wasn’t exactly celebrated for his recordings of Debussy, was he? Nor was Klemperer, that is if he ever recorded him. However, when playing the music they loved, they could be fantastic, the real deal, who never short-changed the listener. It’s still necessary to look beyond them because, as far as I’m concerned, neither of them had the widest repertoire and one must still look beyond them to hear the rest of the world. Despite his great successes, Furtwangler was unlucky in three areas: he did not succeed as a composer, he died relatively young as a conductor, and he never made it into the stereo era. On the other hand, Klemperer survived devastating health problems and made it into the era of stereo. Furtwangler was fortunate in that he survived the Nazis without being one of them. I hold both in high regard and have enjoyed their unique and insightful recordings as part of the golden age of the music.


----------



## Becca

Klemperer's repertoire was much larger than we now think ... Stravinsky, Hindemith, Weill, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, Janacek, Bartok ... even Gershwin and Debussy.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Becca said:


> Klemperer's repertoire was much larger than we now think ... Stravinsky, Hindemith, Weill, Shostakovich, Schoenberg, Janacek, Bartok ... even Gershwin and Debussy.


Thank you for mentioning Klemperer and Janacek in the same sentence, sadly not something seen very often, and even less expected!

One could argue that Klemperer was Janacek's No.1 champion in pre-war Germany, and beyond. I believe he put both The Cunning Little Vixen and The House of the Dead on at his opera House in Berlin? And unless I am going mad, I seem to remember he was the first to conduct Janacek in America? There's a recording of him doing the Sinfonietta from the mid-50s in this:


----------



## wkasimer

flamencosketches said:


> Seems near unanimous: Klemperer was never the conductor that Furtwängler was.


Unanimous? Because a few people on TC think so? Perhaps the rest of us don't see any merit to the pointless ranking of performers. Or don't agree.


----------



## gardibolt

Generally I like Furtwängler's performances better, but Klemperer gets special credit for me since his recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony was the first time I felt like I understood the piece.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

gardibolt said:


> Generally I like Furtwängler's performances better, but Klemperer gets special credit for me since his recording of Mahler's 2nd symphony was the first time I felt like I understood the piece.


I feel the same way about Klemperer's Mahler 7th. I love that recording. His 9th is also one of the best.


----------



## howlingfantods

They may not be as much opposites as Furtwangler and Toscanini, but virtually so, enough so that I don't think it really makes much sense to compare the two. Furtwangler is the last in the great German Romantic tradition. Klemperer's youth was spent as a member of the Neue Sachlicheit movement ("New Objectivity" or "New Dispassion" or something along those lines), a movement in reaction against the Romantic tendencies of Expressionism. Furtwangler is protean and spontaneous, Klemperer granitic and architectural.

I personally prefer Furt, but I don't think he's "better" or anything along those lines. He's just more on my wavelength. But I love Klemperer's Bach recordings, unfashionable as they are now.


----------



## Heck148

Becca said:


> What is not often realized these days is that in his younger days, Klemperer was a very strong proponent of modern music particularly during his years at the Kroll Opera in Berlin. It was only in his last 15-20 years that he became the grand old man of the central European repertoire.


This is true....Klemperer was a quite a champion of modern music...he slowed down a lot in his later years, but I suspect this may have been due to the terrible physical ailments and injuries he suffered...he fell and injured his head and neck, had a brain tumor, the removal of which left him scarred. ...and he nearly perished in a fire, when he fell asleep smoking in bed...the guy was a physical mess.
videos of his late conducting are unique - he was a huge man, and he stands rigidly, awkwardly, pounding up and down with his closed fist, beating the air like some sort of podium-Frankenstein.
I often wonder if his extraordinarily slow tempos resulted from his physical limitations...[??]


----------



## Becca

Heck148 said:


> This is true....Klemperer was a quite a champion of modern music...he slowed down a lot in his later years, but I suspect this may have been due to the terrible physical ailments and injuries he suffered...he fell and injured his head and neck, had a brain tumor, the removal of which left him scarred. ...and he nearly perished in a fire, when he fell asleep smoking in bed...the guy was a physical mess.
> videos of his late conducting are unique - he was a huge man, and he stands rigidly, awkwardly, pounding up and down with his closed fist, beating the air like some sort of podium-Frankenstein.
> I often wonder if his extraordinarily slow tempos resulted from his physical limitations...[??]


I suspect not as some of his issues, particularly the tumor in 1939 and the fall in 1951 substantially predate his much slower tempi. Even into the 1960's there were many of his performances, particularly Mahler & Bruckner, which were (and still are) on the faster side of average.


----------



## 89Koechel

Mengelburg (sic) is to be forgotten? No, thanks. … His interpretations, although sometimes controversial (tempo-wise) are always very interesting … in Tchaikovsky, Brahms and others. If one wants to listen-to a very-original composer … Cornelis Dopper & his Gothic Chaconne … look to youtube, and the Mengelberg version.


----------

