# When Karajan died



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

When Karajan died the World lost its most accomplished exponent of Verdi and Puccini ever, or at least since Serafin. I think you only have to listen to the Ballo prelude to agree? Here’s somebody who knows how it goes.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

The man was a legend in my opinion. His performances of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and Brahms are also extraordinary, I believe.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

He was certainly a great conductor, hated by some in the classical music industry because of his success. John Culshaw described him as 'ruthless and unpredictable' which is probably true. Schwartskopf said he was like a cat, seemingly docile, but you never knew when he was going to strike with his paws. He was a man with a very focussed ambition - to get to the top in his profession, which he did, of course. But as a conductor he was obviously one of the greatest of the twentieth century.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

He was a giant in the opera world. Like Serafin, he knew "how it goes" as you say for a lot of opera: Cav & Pag, the Ring, Rosenkavalier, La Boheme, Tosca...and much more.

It's become a hobby for some people to dismiss him and try to destroy his legacy. Like any other conductor he could turn in average and uninspired readings, but when he was "on" the results were astonishing. His batting average is well above that of most conductors. But he was only human, and in his later years he succumbed to his own vanity and the trappings of great wealth. The videos of the Beethoven symphonies are embarrassing. Maybe it was the competition from the equally vain Bernstein, I don't know. His earlier work was far more vital and interesting, to be sure.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

vxszm,kvfgnxsd.kjbnxsd,klv xsdv,kl n


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Hermastersvoice said:


> When Karajan died the World lost its most accomplished exponent of Verdi and Puccini ever, or at least since Serafin. I think you only have to listen to the Ballo prelude to agree? Here's somebody who knows how it goes.


There is another one besides Serafin you may want to think about for Verdi -- Edward Downes. Maybe only Londoners know about his affinity for Verdi, I'm not sure there's much commercially recorded. I went to some unforgettable performances of Otello, Simon Boccenegra, Forza del Destino and Ballo in Maschera

Re Karajan generally, he was indeed inspired by Verdi and Puccini, and by Strauss I think.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

A great conductor, certainly, whose best work is equal to anyone's (unless we're looking at such uncanny geniuses as Furtwangler and De Sabata). Some of his 1950s opera recordings for EMI, and a number of his live recordings, will certainly remain touchstones. At that stage in his career he could achieve a perfect balance between drama and refinement. But I perceive in his later work with the Berlin Philharmonic a creeping idiosyncracy, a suggestion of hypercontrolling narcissism, that cared too much for refinement and often aimed at effect over substance: he tended to turn music into a kind of sensual sauce, under- and over-articulated by turns, at times engaging in dynamic exaggeration enhanced by eccentric engineering in the recording studio, on top of which were odd casting choices that seemed designed to fulfill some vision of his but placed singers in roles too big for their voices. Despite their many virtues, I can't listen to most of his late opera recordings for DG (then DGG) with pleasure. 

I also have reservations about his highly touted Beethoven symphonies, which give me the sensation of a self-driving car, moving the music along with swift smoothness on the autobahn and seeming never to allow the musicians to breathe. There's something inhuman about it, and it leaves me cold. On the other hand, I like most of Karajan's Sibelius (although even there I generally prefer the earlier recordings for EMI over the later ones for DG), and I think he was always fine in Richard Strauss, whose music is basically a "sensual sauce" anyway.

In Karajan's excessively large catalogue of recordings, there are many great performances, and I must acknowledge that to balance what might seem severe criticism. Quite honestly, though, I don't get the hyperdulia over him.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> ... His earlier work was far more vital and interesting, to be sure.


I'll agree to that.

I admit to not being a big Karajan fan, but I see that I have the following box set in my current collection. Unopened as of yet.





















I've been saving it for a slow, stormy (rainy-snowy-icy) day … come to think of it (after a quick peek out the window), a day much like today!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> A great conductor, certainly, whose best work is equal to anyone's (unless we're looking at such uncanny geniuses as Furtwangler and De Sabata). Some of his 1950s opera recordings for EMI, and a number of his live recordings, will certainly remain touchstones. At that stage in his career he could achieve a perfect balance between drama and refinement. But I perceive in his later work with the Berlin Philharmonic a creeping idiosyncracy, a suggestion of hypercontrolling narcissism, that cared too much for refinement and often aimed at effect over substance: he tended to turn music into a kind of sensual sauce, under- and over-articulated by turns, at times engaging in dynamic exaggeration enhanced by eccentric engineering in the recording studio, on top of which were odd casting choices that seemed designed to fulfill some vision of his but placed singers in roles too big for their voices. Despite their many virtues, I can't listen to most of his late opera recordings for DG (then DGG) with pleasure.
> 
> I also have reservations about his highly touted Beethoven symphonies, which gives me the sensation of a self-driving car, moving the music along with swift smoothness on the autobahn and seeming never to allow the musicians to breathe. There's something inhuman about it, and it leaves me cold. On the other hand, I like most of Karajan's Sibelius (although even there I generally prefer the earlier recordings for EMI over the later ones for DG), and I think he was always fine in Richard Strauss, whose music is basically a "sensual sauce" anyway.
> 
> In Karajan's excessively large catalogue of recordings, there are many great performances, and I must acknowledge that to balance what might seem severe criticism. Quite honestly, though, I don't get the hyperdulia over him.


Are you in New York? It's just that there used to be a fabulous recording available for free from the Met website of Karajan conducting Die Walkure with Vickers and Nilssen I think, extremely tense when Brunhilde comes to whip Siegmund off to Valhalla. I thought you might have been there !

I only ever saw Karajan conduct once as far as I can remember, it was a rehearsal in Berlin and it included Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, at the time I thought it was the bees knees!

What do you think about Helga Dernesch? I'm too far out of the world of opera to comment with any confidence, but she was his protégée if I remember right.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

beware those box sets though.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Tchaikovsky, yes, but isn’t the grit and melancholy of a Mravinski or Ancerl missing? Brahms, Beethoven perhaps, but Klemperer’s unyielding steady pulse or Walter’s legato must compete and, to my ears are infinitely more successful in terms of conveying the argument. But Karajan in Puccini or Verdi you have to go back to Serafin. Nobody, not even Serafin has made such sense of the Ballo prelude, you know it from the first pizzicato. Or, listen to the statement he makes out of the Credo in Tosca (granted, Taddei sings magnificently too) - hair raising.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Are you in New York? It's just that there used to be a fabulous recording available for free from the Met website of Karajan conducting Die Walkure with Vickers and Nilssen I think, extremely tense when Brunhilde comes to whip Siegmund off to Valhalla. I thought you might have been there !
> 
> I only ever saw Karajan conduct once as far as I can remember, it was a rehearsal in Berlin and it included Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, at the time I thought it was the bees knees!
> 
> What do you think about Helga Dernesch? I'm too far out of the world of opera to comment with any confidence, but she was his protégée if I remember right.


No. I'm in Oregon, though I grew up on the east coast. I never attended many live concerts, and don't know anything about that Walkure.

Dernesch was a favorite of Karajan's when she was singing soprano, and she got the lead roles on his recordings of _Tristan,_ the _Ring,_ and _Fidelio_ (apparently he didn't get along with Birgit Nilsson, so he passed over her when casting his Berlin Wagner recordings). Dernesch later switched to mezzo. A fine singer and artist, but I always felt the high notes in soprano roles taxed her a bit.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

When someone is being hyped in his (or her) life time it is only natural to un-hype him or her afterwards. 
Karajan was definitely hyped and has now been un-hyped, so now we can approach him with more sobriety (if that's the right word).


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> there used to be a fabulous recording available for free from the Met website of Karajan conducting Die Walkure with Vickers and Nilsson I think, extremely tense when Brunhilde comes to whip Siegmund off to Valhalla


That broadcast, which also features Crespin as Sieglinde, is included in the recently issued "Birgit Nilsson: The Great Live Recordings":


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are some Karajan works I enjoy including some opera but, in my opinion, to suggest he was better in Verdi and Puccini than Toscanini is … well, I cannot agree.

To cite just one little matter, Toscanini knew Puccini, they worked together on his operas, and the Italian maestro premiered _La bohème_, _Turandot _and _La fanciulla del West_. Many today still consider his Puccini definitive insofar as he and the composer worked so closely together.

Toscanini was equally as fine in much repertory that Karajan specialized in. Wikipedia says, "Toscanini was especially famous for his performances of Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Debussy and his own compatriots Rossini, Verdi, Boito and Puccini,' all areas where Karajan too made a killing in recordings.

If Karajan was most famous for anything it was the high gloss orchestra he created in Berlin and the ways in which he used the recording industry, in my opinion. He jumped on new technology and worked closely with Sony to make recordings better than they sounded in the concert hall, something we take for granted today but that had never previously been accomplished.

Still, I more often found his recordings too glossy, too calculated, and in Bruckner especially the bar line was always apparent. He was less structured earlier in his career, I agree, and his concert and radio broadcasts issued by Andante showed a more spontaneous conductor in concert.

He had all kinds of masterpieces on record, in part because he was the most recorded conductor in history. He may have outsold Toscanini for first place all time in dollar value though considering it took 10 78s to make a symphony the sheer numbers will probably always tilt to the Italian.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> (apparently he didn't get along with Birgit Nilsson, so he passed over her when casting his Berlin Wagner recordings).


I suspect that this was more a contractual issue than personal - Nilsson had already recorded Tristan, Brunnhilde, and Leonore for Decca (and Tristan a second time with DG). And Karajan preferred lighter voices in Wagner than Nilsson's.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

larold said:


> There are some Karajan works I enjoy including some opera but, in my opinion, to suggest he was better in Verdi and Puccini than Toscanini is … well, I cannot agree.
> 
> To cite just one little matter, Toscanini knew Puccini, they worked together on his operas, and the Italian maestro premiered _La bohème_, _Turandot _and _La fanciulla del West_. Many today still consider his Puccini definitive insofar as he and the composer worked so closely together.
> 
> ...


Funny what people say. Apparently Karajan did not conduct the bar lines!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is a tremendous amount of stuff talked and written about Karajan, much of it based on misinformation. Certainly he and Nilsson did not get on. He liked to control and she 'had quite a mouth on her so it was not going to be a marriage made in heaven' (C Ludwig) Certainly, however, they worked together on many occasions - she made the appearance in a miner's lamp in protest at how dark he had made the stage. But certainly the main reason they never recorded together was because at the time Nilsson was a Decca artist and had recently recorded the roles with Decca and Solti. Same with Richard Strauss. But another reason may have been that 9rightly or wrongly) Karajan preferred a different type of voice, a more rounded one, like Denersch. The one frustration remains that Culshaw chose to record Tristan with the then inexperienced Solti when Karajan was available and contracted to Decca. Apparently Karajan was most displeased he was not recording Tristan (with his opera house orchestra at the time!) and did his best to sabotage the sessions by demanding sessions of his own. He got them and disrupted the Tristan sessions. Solti later said he should have waited to record Tristan - 'I was too inexperienced'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The one frustration remains that Culshaw chose to record Tristan with the then inexperienced Solti when Karajan was available and contracted to Decca. apparently Karajan was most displeased he was not recording Tristan and did his best to sabotage the sessions by demanding sessions of his own.


Culshaw's _Tristan_ could have been conducted by God himself - I mean Furtwangler - and it would still have been an unsatisfying (inadequately cast and perversely engineered) recording, so not much was lost in failing to employ Karajan.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

here's a movie of him rehearsing Schumann 4th where one might get a impression that he is trying to sabotage its performance and subsequent recording -






















etc.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> here's a movie of him rehearsing Schumann 4th where one might get a impression that he is trying to sabotage its performance and subsequent recording -


What nonsense is that?


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

DavidA said:


> He was certainly a great conductor, hated by some in the classical music industry because of his success. John Culshaw described him as 'ruthless and unpredictable' which is probably true.


Culshaw calling someone ruthless. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2018)

DavidA said:


> The one frustration remains that Culshaw chose to record Tristan with the then inexperienced Solti when Karajan was available and contracted to Decca. Apparently Karajan was most displeased he was not recording Tristan (with his opera house orchestra at the time!) and did his best to sabotage the sessions by demanding sessions of his own. He got them and disrupted the Tristan sessions. Solti later said he should have waited to record Tristan - 'I was too inexperienced'.


I thought it was common knowledge that Culshaw favored Solti because Solti was relatively inexperienced and could be manipulated to get the performance that Culshaw wanted to put down on tape.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Baron Scarpia said:


> What nonsense is that?


nonsense being that he forced the orchestra to blur the start of the symphony to begin with.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Culshaw used Solti. Legge used Karajan. Thank God! People can rave all they want about today's crop of conductors, but we will never see the likes of Solti or Karajan again. And record producers - the "golden age" of classical recording is over and it was thanks to people like Culshaw, Legge and others that we have such a valued legacy. Karajan's control over an orchestra was astonishing; as close to proof of ESP, mass hypnosis and mind control as I've ever seen. Even Bernstein was often baffled how HvK got the results he did.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Fellow contributors. Please let’s discuss music, not animosities or personal trivia. Iarold, I don’t think I said that Karajan was “better” than Toscanini; rather that few were his equals in this repertoire. Again, try the Ballo prelude by both conductors; granted Karajan’s orchestra is much the finer but also the phrasing is Hors concours. I know that Toscanini can lay claim to authenticity but that claim doesn’t necessarily carry the day. Toscanini’s Falstaff is of course untouchable, especially the performance with Stabile but his Boheme is rather unremarkable, he doesn’t manage to get the glowing intensity from the strings nor is his rhythm in the parlando as assured as Karajan’s, Beecham’s or Serafin’s , not to my ears anyway.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Culshaw calling someone ruthless. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


It takes one to recognise another! You don't do what those guys did without a certain ruthless streak.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I thought it was common knowledge that Culshaw favored Solti because Solti was relatively inexperienced and could be manipulated to get the performance that Culshaw wanted to put down on tape.


Whether of course this is true is a matter of conjecture. This is another rumour that has arisen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> Culshaw used Solti. Legge used Karajan. Thank God! People can rave all they want about today's crop of conductors, but* we will never see the likes of Solti or Karajan again*. And record producers - the "golden age" of classical recording is over and it was thanks to people like Culshaw, Legge and others that we have such a valued legacy. Karajan's control over an orchestra was astonishing; as close to proof of ESP, mass hypnosis and mind control as I've ever seen. Even Bernstein was often baffled how HvK got the results he did.


Of course, the reason we do not see the lies of Karajan and Solti is because orchestras have become (for better or worse) more democratic and do not tolerate the control these men demanded. The reason we won't see record producers like that is because the majors are no longer into recording the repertoire as they once did.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Hermastersvoice said:


> Fellow contributors. Please let's discuss music, not animosities or personal trivia. Iarold, I don't think I said that Karajan was "better" than Toscanini; rather that few were his equals in this repertoire. Again, try the Ballo prelude by both conductors; granted Karajan's orchestra is much the finer but also the phrasing is Hors concours. I know that Toscanini can lay claim to authenticity but that claim doesn't necessarily carry the day. *Toscanini's Falstaff is of course untouchable,* especially the performance with Stabile but his Boheme is rather unremarkable, he doesn't manage to get the glowing intensity from the strings nor is his rhythm in the parlando as assured as Karajan's, Beecham's or Serafin's , not to my ears anyway.


It's a bench mark performance but untouchable? I don't think so. Karajan's 1950s cast is much better.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Karajan's recordings seem always to be at the bottom of the pile of my CDs. I have a 1978 EMI recording of his of Debussy's La Mer; superb sound, okay performance. My other recording of this on Decca by Ashkenazy is so much better, nuanced and compelling and yet Ashkenazy is rarely ever spoken about in the way that Karajan is (as some sort of conducting demi-god).

The argument is now always presented as him being the victim of success, where after being exalted he is then brought down. Perhaps so. He was over-exalted and given dubious credit for being associated with music other conductors did a better job with. Own fault I say.

Still, places like you tube have abysmal 1970s videos of the old coffin-dodger 'conducting' an orchestra whilst looking as if he's fallen asleep and the commentary is rapturous. You can even see that the orchestra is paying little attention because he's not even moving his hands, keeping no obvious tempos. It's show conducting. Ludicrous.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I have enjoyed his Beethoven up to the 70s DG set - I tend not to listen to his 80s stuff though the Brahms isnt bad.

The 50s rec of Cosi is one of my favourites - perhaps the best Cosi on record better than the 60s one with Bohm though there's not much in it., despite being mono only. 

His Mozart symphonies seem to have a poor rep for being too big band etc. I just listened to his BPO rec of the Jupiter and found the pacing near perfect good punchy last mvt seems to be a good perf.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

DavidA, yes Karajan’s 1957 Falstaff with Gobbi is also my first choice. But I have to concede that Toscanini in 1937 with Stabile in terms of the conducting is head and shoulder above the competition. Eugeneonagain, can we please remain respectful!


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'll agree to that.
> 
> I admit to not being a big Karajan fan, but I see that I have the following box set in my current collection. Unopened as of yet.
> 
> ...


Mine are all opened, ripped and listened to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> Karajan's recordings seem always to be at the bottom of the pile of my CDs. I have a 1978 EMI recording of his of Debussy's La Mer; superb sound, okay performance. *My other recording of this on Decca by Ashkenazy is so much better, nuanced and compelling and yet Ashkenazy is rarely ever spoken about in the way that Karajan is (as some sort of conducting demi-god).
> *
> The argument is now always presented as him being the victim of success, where after being exalted he is then brought down. Perhaps so. He was over-exalted and given dubious credit for being associated with music other conductors did a better job with. Own fault I say.
> 
> Still, places like you tube have abysmal 1970s videos of the old coffin-dodger 'conducting' an orchestra whilst looking as if he's fallen asleep and the commentary is rapturous. You can even see that the orchestra is paying little attention because he's not even moving his hands, keeping no obvious tempos. *It's show conducting. Ludicrous*.


Interesting that I have both Karajan and Ashkenazy conducting La Mer and my CDs are the other way round! :lol:

Before talking about his 'show conducting' you really ought to listen to those who played under him. Does make your comment seem somewhat ludicrous.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Interesting that I have both Karajan and Ashkenazy conducting La Mer and my CDs are the other way round! :lol:


De gustibus non est disputandum... of course.



DavidA said:


> Before talking about his 'show conducting' you really ought to listen to those who played under him. Does make your comment seem somewhat ludicrous.


Depends which performances you are referencing. Not those clapped-out performances from the late 70s/80s I hope? As was previously noted (by Woodduck I think) those overly-smooth recordings of the late 50s/early 60s are also hit-and-miss; not for his fawning fans of course.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2018)

stomanek said:


> I have enjoyed his Beethoven up to the 70s DG set - I tend not to listen to his 80s stuff though the Brahms isnt bad.
> 
> The 50s rec of Cosi is one of my favourites - perhaps the best Cosi on record better than the 60s one with Bohm though there's not much in it., despite being mono only.
> 
> His Mozart symphonies seem to have a poor rep for being too big band etc. I just listened to his BPO rec of the Jupiter and found the pacing near perfect good punchy last mvt seems to be a good perf.


My first encounter with Karajan's 80's Beethoven left me cold (soon after it came out) but I returned to it recently and found something to admire in it. It is early digital and has the digital "glare" that is characteristic of recordings of that time. But there are some interpretive touches I liked, such as horns which bark more aggressively in the 7th symphony first movement and finale. Sound is a bit harsh, though.

My problem with Karajan's DG Mozart is that winds are so recessed in the recording. The EMI recordings of around 1970 have a recording balance that is much more satisfying.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> Depends which performances you are referencing. Not those clapped-out performances from the late 70s/80s I hope? As was previously noted (by Woodduck I think) those overly-smooth recordings of the late 50s/early 60s are also hit-and-miss; not for his fawning fans of course.


So resorting to that tactic again? Attacking the fans now for being 'fawning? Sorry - just doesn't wash.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2018)

eugeneonagain said:


> Depends which performances you are referencing. Not those clapped-out performances from the late 70s/80s I hope? As was previously noted (by Woodduck I think) those overly-smooth recordings of the late 50s/early 60s are also hit-and-miss; not for his fawning fans of course.


I find he had hits and misses throughout his career, which is true of any conductor. At the very end, in the late 80's, he made some recordings in which he seems to have returned to his roots and produced interpretations which are less idiosyncratic, more immediate in their expressiveness.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

For the Berliners, Herbert is a God! The street in front of Berliner Philharmoniker has his name. He is mentioned in concerts, in musical events, everywhere. His recordings are selling like warm bread. Logically speaking I'm also a fan of him. I have seen him live on the podium conducting and, that was an experience, in one rehearsal of Parsifal (on the TV). The rehearsal was a unique experience. The man had so much energy. He was often on the stage giving directions to the singers. He was singing with them. He was making gestures. One, two times I saw him almost dancing! He gave them motivation, inspiration, ideas, everything. A very talented artist indeed. Only Lenny comes near to him. (I like Lenny slightly more. I have the felling that he knows more music and, generally speaking, is better teacher and not so cold as the big Austrian. Because Karajan was many times arrogant. Seldom gave a smile to other people... He signed auto grams like ha was doing a huge favor to his fans. Many times he refused to answer simple questions and some times was replying with a simple gesture, like ''you should know this, poor, little man!'')
And the last: 90 % of his recordings or podium appearances are top! But he has also some below average and a friend already mentioned something in a previous post.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I rarely play Karajan recordings these days (which is surprising as I was weened on his 60s Beethoven cycle) but when I do certain recordings bring a big, warm glow to me. There is that 'Karajan sound' which is unmistakable. There's undeniable beauty in some of his recordings but there's lots of punch too. That kind of sound is not fashionable at the moment but it will be appreciated more in he future. No other conductor I can think of created an orchestral soundscape quite like him. Karajan was Karajan. People loved his stuff and others hated it. Played his LVB (from the 60s cycle) the other day, for the first time in well over a year and the playing of the BPO and the steady grip he has on them is incredible. His sense of pulse was second to none. Love him or hate him he was a very talented conductor.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

I don’t know if a music lover can “hate” somebody who presided over so much great music-making. To the very end, there was undeniable greatness; Bruckner 7-8, Ballo. How does it matter what he looked like signing autographs?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> So resorting to that tactic again? Attacking the fans now for being 'fawning? Sorry - just doesn't wash.


Heh heh. Pot and kettle. I'll refrain (mostly out of laziness) from digging up six years' worth of sniffy remarks about "worshippers" of Wagner and Callas.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DavidA said:


> So resorting to that tactic again? *Attacking* the fans now for being 'fawning? Sorry - just doesn't wash.


I'm not 'attacking' them. They're allowed to fawn as much as they like.

And what Wooduck wrote; which you must admit makes a mockery of your outrage.:lol:


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. Pot and kettle. I'll refrain (mostly out of laziness) from digging up six years' worth of sniffy *remarks about "worshippers" of Wagner* and Callas.





eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not 'attacking' them. They're allowed to fawn as much as they like.
> 
> *And what Wooduck wrote; which you must admit makes a mockery of your outrage*.:lol:


Although you somewhat contributed on that too, didn't you? 

https://www.talkclassical.com/16059-wagner-vs-mahler-2.html#post1244089


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not 'attacking' them. They're allowed to fawn as much as they like.
> 
> And what Wooduck wrote; which you must admit makes a mockery of your outrage.:lol:


 I am not at all outraged - that is just another assumption you have made - I mean, why on earth should I be outraged by your opinions? Amused maybe but not outraged. I really don't take things that seriously :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Well worth hearing-






On the other hand, he played the Mahler Fifth and Sixth like Bruckner and I never made it through either recording after repeated attempts-I felt that he had no business playing them. He redeemed himself with the Mahler Ninth. When at his best, he could be tremendous; when at his worst, he could sound artificial and completely misinterpret and distort a composer's intentions.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Christa Ludwig looking up at Karajan's plane and hearing the motor sputter a bit:
A friend said " Oh, that plane is having trouble"
Ludwig, "Oh, don't worry, nothing will happen. Karajan is in there."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> Although you somewhat contributed on that too, didn't you?
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/16059-wagner-vs-mahler-2.html#post1244089


One of those gentlemen has recognized his errors. The other thinks his errors are products of his superior wisdom.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

larold said:


> If Karajan was most famous for anything it was the high gloss orchestra he created in Berlin and the ways in which he used the recording industry, in my opinion. He jumped on new technology and worked closely with Sony to make recordings better than they sounded in the concert hall, something we take for granted today but that had never previously been accomplished.
> 
> Still, I more often found his recordings too glossy, too calculated, and in Bruckner especially the bar line was always apparent.


I admit above that I have never been a big fan of Karajan. But I do now recognize that some of his work, especially from the earlier years, is great. But my general opinion of his work is that I never cared for it, and it took me a while to realize exactly what that meant. It goes back to the sixties when I started buying classical records, back when I really didn't know much about anything except that I liked Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Brahms. It was an era when I experimented, taking chances with what small green I had to buy recordings of folks new to my ears: Bruckner, Mahler, Schumann, Penderecki. There were certain records that didn't much thrill me, and others that did, played on an old sub-par record player, nothing quite like I utilize today. But some of the music (or was it the recording?) I simply didn't care for.

It took some time for me to notice that most of the records I really didn't like (say, a Bruckner symphony -- even though I was finding other Bruckner symphonies wonderful!) were conducted by this fellow named Karajan. Again, I knew little about various conductors and did not then buy records based on conductors. (I do today.) And eventually I simply stopped purchasing albums with Karajan's name on them.

I believe it was the beginning of the Digital era, when Karajan (I later learned) was greatly involved. Wasn't he the one who delegated the time-size of the CD? To fit the Beethoven Ninth? In any case, it was that very bland slickness that I came to dislike in the recordings -- a kind of sameness of orchestral texture, not the gritty individual instrument sounds I favored, but an overall wash of glossy sameness of some sort. (I still hear it in those old Karajan records I purchased back when.)

Over the years I came to favor certain conductors: Mravinsky, Furtwängler, Bernstein, Frühbeck de Burgos, Karel Ancerl, Svetlanov, Klemperer, Kempe. Their music wasn't so much glossy and perfect as it was gritty and real, with a lot of individual sound textures from various instruments and instrumental groups, not a single sounding wash of blandness.

So … that's basically where I still stand with Karajan. I did purchase that big box set, but I don't have too many of his recordings in my collection, though I do have one of the Beethoven collections that I find pretty good, and not filled with that glossy sound. But there are so many conductors and so much music, one needn't get stuck on any one, anyhow.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I am not at all outraged - that is just another assumption you have made - I mean, why on earth should I be outraged by your opinions? Amused maybe but not outraged. I really don't take things that seriously :lol:


Quite... Doesn't come across as anything like outrage m'lud.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> I admit above that I have never been a big fan of Karajan. But I do now recognize that some of his work, especially from the earlier years, is great. But my general opinion of his work is that I never cared for it, and it took me a while to realize exactly what that meant.
> 
> It took some time for me to notice that most of the records I really didn't like (say, a Bruckner symphony -- even though I was finding other Bruckner symphonies wonderful!) were conducted by this fellow named Karajan. Again, I knew little about various conductors and did not then buy records based on conductors. (I do today.) And eventually I simply stopped purchasing albums with Karajan's name on them.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. It's that "sensuous sauce" I spoke of. Your description of the sort of sound you prefer, "gritty and real, with a lot of individual sound textures from various instruments and instrumental groups, not a single sounding wash of blandness," expresses my own preference well.

Among my several thousand CDs, I may have no more than a dozen Karajan recordings - mainly, I think, a few of his superb opera recordings done in the '50s for EMI. I'm also recalling some Sibelius, and Honnegger's 3rd symphony. That's a great performance. But there is not much music, at least in the areas I like most (including a lot of the central German repertoire) that I would not prefer to hear conducted by someone else.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2018)

We are of course, entitled to our opinions, but lumping together all of Karajan's recordings as "polished," "glossy", "smooth" misses the point, in my view. What he brought new to orchestral music performance is an extraordinary focus on the quality of sound as an expressive device. Sometimes he wanted it smooth, sometimes he wanted it anything but smooth.

Listen to the first movement of his 70's recording of Dvorak 9 for EMI. In the slow introduction gentle music is interrupted several times by outbursts from strings answered by timpani. I defy anyone to call that smooth. I'm surprised the string players didn't crack their bows, based on the brutal sound of the attack at those moment. He was a master of making a loud passage buttery gentle (slow movement of Bruckner 6) or a quiet passage menacing (Bartok CfO, finale). He got many different qualities of string sound from his orchestra. One that comes to mind is his 60's DG recording of Schubert's Unfinished, First movement. The loud passages for string section in development section and coda have a harrowing, yet ethereal sound I don't recall hearing elsewhere. The sheer sensuousness he got from the string section in his 70's recording of Brahms 4, second movement, is unmatched in my experience.

His thing was manipulating orchestral timbre to amplify what he felt the composer was trying to convey. There is a downside, of course. It is less objective. He is taking liberties and more or less forcing you to hear the music the way he hears it in his mind's ear. It is like when a novel is made into a movie, less domain for your imagination to fill in. But he brought something unique.

To sum up, I'm always interested to hear what Karajan does with a piece, even (or especially) a piece that he's supposedly bad at. But I rarely am satisfied to have _only_ a Karajan recording of a piece.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

I introduced this post to highlight Karajan’s outstanding quality in the repertoire of the Italian opera repertoire; Lucia, Cav & Pag, Trovatore, Ballo, Don Carlo, Aida, Otello, Falstaff, Requiem, Boheme, Butterfly, Tosca - his understanding of this repertoire is really unequalled in the era of recording. No wonder he had such a long and successful relationship with La Scala and, apparently, the admiration of de Sabata.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Maybe it should have been in the opera forum then? Otherwise thread developments are to be expected.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have posted this before ... but for those who haven't already seen it... This video comes from the Berlin Philharmonics Digital Concert Hall.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

The documentary "Beauty as I see it". Opens with Sir Georg Solti himself stating that Karajan "_was perhaps the greatest conductor of the 20th century_".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

eugeneonagain said:


> Quite... Doesn't come across as anything like outrage m'lud.


Now I see you're running out of steam, posting this! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The thing is that every great conductor has had their detractors fro second raters, especially those who were as successful as Karajan. Certainly I remember critics panning Toscanini's recordings and Furtwangler getting a bad press. Szell was described as 'mechanical' by some. There are those who say they hate Solti's conducting. I remember Bernstein getting bad reviews. And Stokowski - they were besides themselves because of his showmanship. 
The fact is that you can't please everyone and there will always be those who cavil at someone else's success. It's called the 'tell poppy' syndrome. To do so people invent myths like Karajan always conducted everything the same. Actually most conductors do! Karajan was actually far more varied than some conductors as his recordings - live and studio - show. Interesting that people who actually played under him appear to be thrilled by his musicianship. But of course, they don't count!
Then of course, people go on about Karajan's arrogance, vanity, etc. Well if we start disqualifying conductors on those grounds we have a very poor harvest indeed! :lol:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> I have posted this before ... but for those who haven't already seen it... This video comes from the Berlin Philharmonics Digital Concert Hall.


Yes and Rattle himself suffered from the tall poppy syndrome when he went to Berlin!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Baron Scarpia said:


> lumping together all of Karajan's recordings as "polished," "glossy", "smooth" misses the point


that concerns mainly his German composers recordings, meanwhile for example his Verdi's are ok.

as for the Germans, he seems to defuse or disarm the music, to an extent it starts to sound somewhat asexual.

was he a Nazi at all or he was a Jesuit who merely posed as a Nazi?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> that concerns mainly his German composers recordings, meanwhile for example his Verdi's are ok.
> 
> as for the Germans, he seems to defuse or disarm the music, to an extent it starts to sound somewhat asexual.
> 
> was he a Nazi at all or he was a Jesuit who merely posed as a Nazi?


Just illustrates what I mean. Peopke invent phrases. The music starts sounding 'asexual' - what on earth does that mean? He difuses ir disarms the music? And the old Nazi tag. But we are discussing his abilities as a conductor.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> I believe it was the beginning of the Digital era, when Karajan (I later learned) was greatly involved. Wasn't he the one who delegated the time-size of the CD? To fit the Beethoven Ninth? In any case, it was that very bland slickness that I came to dislike in the recordings -- a kind of sameness of orchestral texture, not the gritty individual instrument sounds I favored, but an overall wash of glossy sameness of some sort. (I still hear it in those old Karajan records I purchased back when.)
> 
> Over the years I came to favor certain conductors: Mravinsky, Furtwängler, Bernstein, Frühbeck de Burgos, Karel Ancerl, Svetlanov, Klemperer, Kempe. Their music wasn't so much glossy and perfect as it was gritty and real, with a lot of individual sound textures from various instruments and instrumental groups, not a single sounding wash of blandness.
> 
> So … that's basically where I still stand with Karajan. I did purchase that big box set, but I don't have too many of his recordings in my collection, though I do have one of the Beethoven collections that I find pretty good, and not filled with that glossy sound. But there are so many conductors and so much music, one needn't get stuck on any one, anyhow.





Woodduck said:


> I'm with you. It's that "sensuous sauce" I spoke of. Your description of the sort of sound you prefer, "gritty and real, with a lot of individual sound textures from various instruments and instrumental groups, not a single sounding wash of blandness," expresses my own preference well.
> 
> Among my several thousand CDs, I may have no more than a dozen Karajan recordings - mainly, I think, a few of his superb opera recordings done in the '50s for EMI. I'm also recalling some Sibelius, and Honnegger's 3rd symphony. That's a great performance. But there is not much music, at least in the areas I like most (including a lot of the central German repertoire) that I would not prefer to hear conducted by someone else.


Generally speaking, I must say that Herbert has ''eaten'' Sergius place in BP and for this reason I don't love him. (I'm fan of a lot of his music, I have a lot of respect for him , but I don't love him) So, I have no intention to defend his work. But your statements about too much perfection, which drives to flat results musically, is something I don't understand. (I'm not say you're wrong) I know that the best Karmen out there is the 1954 in Salzburg. (with Simionato and Gedda) I know that the second best one is from him with Agnes. But, I also know, that his circle of Tschaikowkys symphonies is not very good. Where is the problem? He was just a man. Not the superman. With ups and downs. He was doing everything, like Lenny. He conducted almost every composer. It is logic, some of his works to be inferior than other. (Evgeni, Genadi etc. conducting more their fellow Russian composers. Naturally are experts to them)

§ I'm also short with Herbys recordings. But for another reason. (a lot of reprint)


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Becca said:


> I have posted this before ... but for those who haven't already seen it... This video comes from the Berlin Philharmonics Digital Concert Hall.


*
Perfektion and Distance*! This is Karajan! Bravo dear Sir!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> we are discussing his abilities as a conductor.


i did not say he was no great conductor.

but great at what? at destroying the heritage of German Romanticism?

whose agent he was and whose interests he lobbied in there?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Dimace said:


> Generally speaking, I must say that Herbert has ''eaten'' Sergius place in BP and for this reason I don't love him. (I'm fan of a lot of his music, I have a lot of respect for him , but I don't love him) So, I have no intention to defend his work. But your statements about too much perfection, which drives to flat results musically, is something I don't understand. (I'm not say you're wrong) I know that the best Karmen out there is the 1954 in Salzburg. (with Simionato and Gedda) I know that the second best one is from him with Agnes. But, I also know, that his circle of Tschaikowkys symphonies is not very good. Where is the problem? He was just a man. Not the superman. With ups and downs. He was doing everything, like Lenny. He conducted almost every composer. It is logic, some of his works to be inferior than other. (Evgeni, Genadi etc. conducting more their fellow Russian composers. Naturally are experts to them)
> 
> § I'm also short with Herbys recordings. But for another reason. (a lot of reprint)


It's funny how people differ. Karajan's Tchaikovsky 6 was the BBC building a library voice not so long back. Just shows how subjective these things are.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> i did not say he was no great conductor.
> 
> but great at what? at destroying the heritage of German Romanticism?
> 
> whose agent he was and whose interests he lobbied in there?


Seems to me more meaningless phrases. They sound good but what do they mean?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> phrases. They sound good but what do they mean?


well, for example -



DavidA said:


> 'asexual' - what on earth does that mean?


'no balls' that is.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Zhdanov said:


> well, for example -
> 
> 'no balls' that is.


Maybe your hearing?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Both myself and Becca have posted this interview before but there's bits about Karajan in here from the people who plsyed for him. The discussion about him starts at about the 22:30 mark. Its kinda the way i think about Karajan.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Maybe your hearing?


no, maybe yours?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Christa Ludwig, " Karajan made music, Bernstein was music."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beecham referred to Karajan as "a kind of musical Malcolm Sargent," a neat double skewer.

BTW, on learning that Sargent's car was caught in rifle fire in Palestine, Beecham is supposed to have said "I had no idea the Arabs were so musical."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Merl said:


> Both myself and Becca have posted this interview before but there's bits about Karajan in here from the people who plsyed for him. The discussion about him starts at about the 22:30 mark. Its kinda the way i think about Karajan.


Apparently the "Karajan sound" was dependent on exceptionally large orchestral forces. The man on the right calls this a "Romantic sound" and expresses nostalgia for it, but the fact is that orchestras throughout most of the 19th century did not have anywhere near the number of players modern orchestras have. The Berlin Philharmonic was founded in 1882 with 52 musicians. The 100+ players we now find in major orchestras probably date back to Wagner's requirements for his epic _Ring_ cycle at Bayreuth, and he positioned his immense forces in a sunken pit with the brass, percussion and basses under the stage. Mahler called for 120 players for his 8th symphony in 1910, but that was not normal even at that date.

Fond as we may be of the plush grandeur of the modern orchestra, we need to realize that the sound image composers in earlier times were used to hearing was different, with the differences determined not only by the number of musicians but also by the technology of instruments and techniques of playing them. The Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan may have been sensuously beautiful, but Mozart, Schubert, Berlioz and Tchaikovsky never heard anything like it. Authentic "Romantic" sound is something other than what that horn player thinks it is.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Tbf to those in the interview they're expressing nostalgia for the what they felt was the romanticised 'Karajan sound' and they and us are quite aware this was not what orchestras used to sound like. We all know that the orchestras that Brahms and Beethoven worked with were smaller and there were limitations with instruments (and with consistency of playing). That Karajan sound also makes me feel nostalgic. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it sounded very wrong but it's a sound we all know.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Beecham referred to Karajan as "a kind of musical Malcolm Sargent," a neat double skewer.
> 
> BTW, on learning that Sargent's car was caught in rifle fire in Palestine, Beecham is supposed to have said "I had no idea the Arabs were so musical."


As Beecham acknowledged Sargent was one of the great orchestra and choral trainers, that might just have been a compliment. Mind you, Beecham did not tend to give a compliment when an insult would do!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Merl said:


> Both myself and Becca have posted this interview before but there's bits about Karajan in here from the people who plsyed for him. The discussion about him starts at about the 22:30 mark. Its kinda the way i think about Karajan.


Quote makes me laugh - "wonderful sound but not PC any more!" We are slaves of fashion and the critics.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> As Beecham acknowledged Sargent was one of the great orchestra and choral trainers, that might just have been a compliment. Mind you, Beecham did not tend to give a compliment when an insult would do!


My source says that Beecham and Sargent were good friends and admired each other's work. Beecham, of course, could seldom resist being Beecham.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Merl said:


> Tbf to those in the interview they're expressing nostalgia for the what they felt was the romanticised 'Karajan sound' and they and us are quite aware this was not what orchestras used to sound like. We all know that the orchestras that Brahms and Beethoven worked with were smaller and there were limitations with instruments (and with consistency of playing). That Karajan sound also makes me feel nostalgic. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it sounded very wrong but it's a sound we all know.


That is not what the man is saying. He's saying that the "opulent sound" _is_ the "Romantic sound," that "the Romantic sound has to come back," and that "people are finally going to play Romantic music in a Romantic style." Listen at 25:08.

You call the characteristics of orchestras of past eras "limitations." Many people now think Mendelssohn and Schubert sound better with 60 players than 100, as well as natural horns (which even Brahms and Wagner preferred to the valve horn) and gut strings played without continuous vibrato. The big sound is fine for late Romantic music, but generally does earlier music no favors. Of course that doesn't mean we can't treasure a great performance of Beethoven by a mid-20th-century conductor and orchestra.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Beethoven (probably in a letter) said that an orchestra of about 60 was right for his symphonies. No date on this, but he was likely referring to his middle-period works.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Fair points and i agree. The limitations i referred to were more with the lack of consistency of early orchestras. I like a huge range of performances, from HIP to big-band. Theres room for all kinds of interpretation. I love some, like some, tolerate some and hate others. Whether theyre a chamber sized orchestra or a cast of 120 I care not. If the performance sounds right i'll like it. For example i dislike Karajan's sloppy Schumann but love his first stereo LvB . Tchaikovsky is a mixed bag for me. I think Karajan does the first 3 really well then disappears up his own **** in the last 3. It would be interesting to see if Karajan would have changed with the emergence of HIP or deemed their sound as "ugly".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> My source says that Beecham and Sargent were good friends and admired each other's work. Beecham, of course, could seldom resist being Beecham.


If you read Beecham's biography he was a pretty awful man in spite of his witticisms. And his witticisms were often to cover up his own innate shyness.


----------

