# Karajan: Godlike genius or mad megalomaniac



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Few conductors, if any, divide opinion like HvK. There are those who love his recordings and those who loathe them.

What are your thoughts on Herbie? 

There are, for me, Karajan recordings that are miles in front of their rivals, but that's not to say I'm a dedicated HvK fanboy.

(with my apologies if this has been done a hundred times already)


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2015)

Apology accepted. Provisionally. (We have standards, there, you know.)

Anyway, only two options? My thought about von Karajan is that he was inconsistent. Some things he nailed. Some things he botched. But that's true for almost anyone doing almost anything. So my thought about Karajan is actually that he was a guy like any other guy. He had certain talents. He had blind spots. He wasn't always "on." He made mistakes. He did some things better than anyone else.

Like every other person.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I also agree that he was very inconsistent as a conductor, but I generally avoid him because he never ends up sitting right with me on most repertoire. He seemed to have a single sound he drew out of an orchestra which reflected himself and his attitude towards music in general, and this comes across as narrow minded in interpretation of such a wide repertoire that he recorded. His sound works for me with music by Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss and Tchaikovsky but not so much for most other composers it seems. None of his recordings that I have heard have much respect for clarity of all the lines and are very focussed on the main melody at the expense of drawing out interesting relationships between contrapuntal lines and inner harmonies etc. 

For Mozart and Mahler he's an absolute shocker. :lol:


----------



## haydnfan (Apr 13, 2011)

Charlie Mac said:


> Few conductors, if any, divide opinion like HvK. There are those who love his recordings and those who loathe them.


I don't perceive that. He had a long career and he had many hits and many misses. Alot of people are not enthusiastic about his late style as opposed to his early style, but I would not call that loathing.


----------



## AClockworkOrange (May 24, 2012)

haydnfan said:


> I don't perceive that. He had a long career and he had many hits and many misses. *Alot of people are not enthusiastic about his late style as opposed to his early style*, but I would not call that loathing.


What Haydnfan says resonates with me.

Where I enjoy many of Karajan's earlier recordings - particularly those with the Philharmonia (his 1950's Beethoven cycle and Sibelius recordings for example), the majority of Karajan's late style - as evidenced in his 1980's Beethoven Cycle which is truly repellent to me.

There are some exceptions here and there - his latter EMI Sibelius and his (DG) Bruckner with the Berliner Philharmoniker comes to mind. I have, in the last year, come to enjoy more of his recordings - thanks largely to the Philharmonia releases on EMI as well as some of his recordings from the '60's and 70's - _Marschallin Blair's_ enthusiasm for his Sibelius piqued my curiosity and I opened up from there.

That said, from the DG sets I have sampled I can honestly say that I find his Haydn Symphonies and Mozart as repellent as his '80's Beethoven. This surprised me - for the former - as Karajan's recordings of Haydn's Schopfung was another piece which caught my ear in his favour.

I now generally share the opinion that like any Conductor, he had strengths and weaknesses. I would go on a case by case basis, favouring the earlier recordings generally speaking.

I do still find him somewhat over-hyped/overrated but that charge can be levelled at many Conductors however.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Why not mad genius or godlike megalomaniac? :lol:


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> None of his recordings that I have heard have much respect for clarity of all the lines and are very focussed on the main melody at the expense of drawing out interesting relationships between contrapuntal lines and inner harmonies etc.


That's an interesting point.

Would you not say that this is, at least partially, true of the majority of conductors of Karajan's era? I mean, if I want to hear a recording that is not dominated by the string section and allows subtle woodwind textures and harmonies to shine through, I find I almost always need to turn to a fairly modern recording.

Jochum's Brahms piano concerti, for instance: the strings dominate almost entirely and the woodwind is often almost completely lost. To the uninitiated, this might sound like a "typical Karajan" recording in a blind listening test; it's all about the main melody, as held by the strings. If I listen to Wigglesworth or even Chailly in the same works, textures are apparent that are largely hidden in the grand BPO recordings.

My question is this: in the 60s and 70s, when Karajan was at his prime, was a focus on "the main melody" not a common tactic employed by a great many of the most renowned conductors of the period?


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Why not, indeed! Perhaps next time.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Charlie Mac said:


> That's an interesting point.
> 
> Would you not say that this is, at least partially, true of the majority of conductors of Karajan's era? I mean, if I want to hear a recording that is not dominated by the string section and allows subtle woodwind textures and harmonies to shine through, I find I almost always need to turn to a fairly modern recording.
> 
> In the 60s and 70s, when Karajan was at his prime, was a focus on "the main melody" not the tactic employed by a great many of the most renowned conductors of the period?


If my memory serves well, Szell was excellent in terms of textural clarity. Just compare Brahms cycles for example. One really interesting area of exploration is Schumann symphonies as well...most conductors seemed to disregard Schumann's colours and instrumental combinations and opt for different orchestrations or prefer to just bring out one main melody and leave the counterpoint in the mush. Bernstein's insistence on Schumann's original orchestration pays off. Compare the textural clarity between Karajan and Berstein on the first movement of the 3rd.

You are right in saying that textural clarity seems to be more of a modern trend...this is one of the reasons why I much prefer newer recordings to older ones anyway.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

You are completely correct to remark upon Szell. He was quite 'modern' in his approach: rhythmically incisive, propulsive and careful to avoid being heavy-handed for the sake of it.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Like many people, Herbert Von Karajan was a man who loved music. Also, like many people Herbert Von Karajan was also a man who had his own ideas of how things should go.

I have all of his recordings on DG, Decca & EMI. Of course everything is not gold, but there are plenty of wonderful recordings from his very prolific career. Perhaps some are not the absolute greatest, but the majority of them are very good and worth hearing. Some are top shelf and stand among the best ever recorded. There are only a few that are complete and total duds. There are a lot of very good recordings and a lot Karajan still has to offer in my opinion.

In the end Karajan followed his own intuition. He knew what he wanted and how he wanted things to be. He made things his own. He created the "Karajan Sound", whether people like it or not. He was unique and I give him all the credit in the world for being true to himself. 

Do I worship the ground he walked on? No. Do I think he was the greatest conductor ever? No. Do I think everything he did was gold? No. Do I think he was a true megalomaniac? No. Do I think he was a godlike genius? No. 

Do I think he was a man all his own. Yes. Do I feel he did a great deal for Classical music and Opera in general? Yes. Will I continue to listen to his recordings. Yes.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

realdealblues said:


> Like many people, Herbert Von Karajan was a man who loved music. Also, like many people Herbert Von Karajan was also a man who had his own ideas of how things should go.
> 
> I have all of his recordings on DG, Decca & EMI. Of course everything is not gold, but there are plenty of wonderful recordings from his very prolific career. Perhaps some are not the absolute greatest, but the majority of them are very good and worth hearing. Some are top shelf and stand among the best ever recorded. There are only a few that are complete and total duds. There are a lot of very good recordings and a lot Karajan still has to offer in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Would you be able to name a few standout or personal favourite Karajan recordings?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Whatever his merits as a human being, Karajan was a very great conductor who left a legacy that is the envy of many others. Just think of the early post war recordings with Legge - some of the finest opera sets ever which still stand comparison with the finest. His move to DG gave us the Beethoven symphonies of 63 which were absolutely trail-blazing in their day in terms of recording quality, orchestral playing and style. And many of his opera recordings are among the finest.
One point to bear in mind was that Karajan could be a very different conductor on two different days. Hence the DG Mozart symphonies are respectable but the ones he made for EMI with the BPO in the 70s are superb. Really vital and alive.
The other point is that Karajan appears a much different conductor live than in the studio. Just listen to his live Figaro and Don Giovanni which are spades away from his somewhat formal studio recordings.
Looking through the repertoire from Mozart on one can usually find a Karajan recording which is right up there with the best. This is a remarkable legacy left by a remarkable conductor.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Charlie Mac said:


> Would you be able to name a few standout or personal favourite Karajan recordings?


Certainly...just off the top of my head. (I'll also include the label and dates I know off the top of my head).

Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (1962, DG)
Beethoven: Triple Concerto (EMI)
Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique (1975, DG)
Bruckner: Te Deum (1976, DG)
Bruckner: Symphony No. 8 (1988, DG)
Bruckner: Symphony No. 9 (1975, DG)
Holst: The Planets (Decca with Vienna Philharmonic)
Honegger: Symphony No. 2 & 3 (1969, DG)
Liszt: Les Preludes (1960, DG)
Liszt: Hungarian Fantasy (1960, DG)
Mahler: Symphony No. 5 (DG)
Prokofiev: Symphony No. 5 (1968, DG)
Puccini: La Boheme (Decca)
Puccini: Madama Butterfly (Decca)
Schoenberg, Webern & Berg Works (DG)
Schubert: Symphony No. 9 (1968, DG)
Sibelius: Tone Poems (En Saga, Finlandia, Tapolia, etc.) (EMI)
Strauss: Metamorphosen (1980, DG)
Strauss: Death & Transfiguration (1982, DG)
Strauss: Salome (EMI)
Strauss: Don Quixote (1965, DG)
Stravinsky: Concerto In D (1969, DG)
Wagner: Die Meistersinger Von Nurnberg (EMI)
Wagner: Preludes, Etc. (EMI)

I rate all of those recordings among some of the best for those works. There's plenty of others I could list if I had my CD's here at work, but those are all excellent recordings in my opinion.

His Beethoven cycles are worth hearing although I don't rate them as highly overall as others like Gunter Wand's cycle which I think on the whole may be the finest available. His Brahms is the same way for me. It's worth hearing what he does, but when compared to Levine's Chicago cycle or Klemperer or again Gunter Wand's cycle on the whole they far exceed Karajan's in my own personal opinion. Same thing with Bruckner, there are some nice individual symphonies, the 8th and 9th I mentioned are excellent, but for an overall cycle Jochum's cycle on EMI with the Staatskapelle Dresden are far superior.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I agree with the gist of what has been said about his merits as an Artist. The hits/misses; the tendency to produce one kind of sound for all Composers; the occassionally truly incandescent outcomes.
I don't know about the meglomaniac part. He really did enjoy his "General musikdirector of Europe" role and the veto power that he apparently had on many other appointments of Conductors to various posts.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

realdealblues said:


> Certainly...just off the top of my head. (I'll also include the label and dates I know off the top of my head).
> 
> Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique (1975, DG)
> .


I really don't think so - I don't think he really 'got' the Gallic essence of this piece.

Having said that, I agree with the very balanced comments evident in almost all of the above posts. Polite, considered and reflective enthusiasm without hyperbole and rancour. Long may it last!


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Good list readdeal; I'd add Karajan's recording of Strauss Alpensymphonie as one of the best there is.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

How about just, pretty good conductor?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

science said:


> How about just, pretty good conductor?


Only a French speaker could get away with a line like that. Love him or hate him, he's a force to be reckoned with!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

realdealblues said:


> Certainly...just off the top of my head. (I'll also include the label and dates I know off the top of my head).
> 
> Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 (1962, DG)
> Beethoven: Triple Concerto (EMI)
> ...


I would have included his analogue Brahms symphonies and, though this is admittedly a very personal (~odd) choice, his 1961 recording of Mozart's _Requiem_ (not remastered).


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Not godlike genius. But not your ordinary conductor either. Capable, but I don't think elevating to godlike genius.


----------



## Epilogue (Sep 20, 2015)

No conductor is ever a godlike genius (unless they also have another job).

Karajan was pretty good though, when he was on and conducting German music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Sonata said:


> Why not mad genius or godlike megalomaniac? :lol:


No, those are both Wagner.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I checked out ArkivMusic to see if Karajan has the most recordings on the market; he does. What surprised me is that Marriner is no. 2. Coming in third is Bernstein.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

In any list of recommended Karajan recordings you have to include his opera recordings. It was the performance in 1936 of Tristan which brought him the title of "Das Wunder Karajan" from the German press. Certainly the performance from Bayreuth in 1952 is incredible in its intensity. Other great recordings include:
Humperdinck - Hansel and Gretel
Mozart - Cosi and the Flute
Strauss - Ariadne au Naxos
Puccini - Butterfly with Callas
Verdi - Trovatore with Callas
The later Butterfly and Boheme
The Culshaw produced Aida, Otello, Tosca and Carmen
Wagner's Ring - my favourite Ring for conducting even though slightly undercast in places
Verdi Don Carlos and a DVD trovatore live
Both Mastersingers
Fidelio and tristan with Denersch and Vickers
Parsifal - live and studio
Terrific live Figaro and Don G
This is quite a list. Not saying they are absolutely the best (often a matter of personal taste) but right up there with the best. This is quite a list for any conductor. 
As to Karajan's 'godlike' status, Culshaw tells a story how on a Sunday afternoon in Vienna they were recording gunshots. The police arrived to investigate after complaints but when they found Karajan was involved they immediately apologised and left. If Herr von Karajan wanted to disturb the Sabbath by letting off cannon on a Sunday afternoon it could only be an extension of the wishes of the Almighty!


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

For my own part, I think there are a number of Karajan recordings that are on another level to the closest rivals:

Beethoven's 9th (1962 and 1976)
Cosi Fan Tutte 
Der Rosenkavalier
Butterfly (with Callas)
Bruckner's 5th
Bruckner's 7th
Bruckner's 8th
Bruckner's 9th
Strauss - Four Last Songs (with Janowitz)

I even really enjoy his Handel Concerti Grossi, Op.6


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I do think Karajan was in some ways his own worst enemy with the sheer number of recordings he made. I'm sure if he had made as few as (e.g.) C Kleiber then he'd have been hailed as a genius by all. However, he did recordings that were sometimes unnecessary. For example, his final Beethoven symphonies from 1982 are certainly not bad - in fact they are mostly very good by most standards. But with perhaps the exception of a superb Eroica they simply don't match the best of his 63 and 77. The problem is that he had set himself such high standards in performance and recording that when they weren't up to that the critics (who are often filed musicians themselves and there delight in negativity) were quick to pounce.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Other recordings by HvK I would not want to be without include the disc of Debussy and Ravel from the 60s, the Shostakovich 10th and the discs of the Second Viennese School. Also the beautiful recording of Pelleas and Mellisande


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

I also love his recordings of the Brahms German Requiem. All of them.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> No, those are both Wagner.


What's Schoenberg?


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

DavidA said:


> I do think Karajan was in some ways his own worst enemy with the sheer number of recordings he made. I'm sure if he had made as few as (e.g.) C Kleiber then he'd have been hailed as a genius by all. However, he did recordings that were sometimes unnecessary. For example, his final Beethoven symphonies from 1982 are certainly not bad - in fact they are mostly very good by most standards. But with perhaps the exception of a superb Eroica they simply don't match the best of his 63 and 77. The problem is that he had set himself such high standards in performance and recording that when they weren't up to that the critics (who are often filed musicians themselves and there delight in negativity) were quick to pounce.


That third set of Beethoven symphonies has always struck me as odd...does anyone know whether they were his idea or DG's? Was it just to have a digital set out in the market, even though the 1962 and 1977 sets are perfectly well recorded?


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> That third set of Beethoven symphonies has always struck me as odd...does anyone know whether they were his idea or DG's? Was it just to have a digital set out in the market, even though the 1962 and 1977 sets are perfectly well recorded?


You mean the _fourth _set, I think. 

Sorry for being pedantic. Everyone forgets the Philharmonia cycle.


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Well, I meant third DG cycle.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

gardibolt said:


> That third set of Beethoven symphonies has always struck me as odd...does anyone know whether they were his idea or DG's? Was it just to have a digital set out in the market, even though the 1962 and 1977 sets are perfectly well recorded?


My understanding was it was Karajan wanting to record them in digital. Karajan loved new technology and was always into exploring it. That's why he re-recorded so many things in digital when the technology became available.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I think Karajan gets it very right or very close more often than not. I feel like Karajan guarantees a minimum level of competence, which is great for someone hearing a piece for the first time.

An excellent recording of his that I have heard is the Mozart Clarinet Concerto (with Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra).


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Some of the complaints here about the balances in some Karajan recordings might be the fault of the engineers ,not the conductor . But Karajan recordings usually seem very well engineered to me .
I've never found the so-called Karajan sound " to be the bland gooey homogenized pasta many critics complain about . .The sound he got out of orchestras was always amazingly rich, full and glistening, but 
always crisp and rhythmically incisive .
If any orchestra was too smooth , it was the Philadelphia orchestra under Ormandy . Some of his recordings are first rate , but too many seem to me nothing but exercises in generalized plushness of sound . It was Ormandy who seemed to apply the same kind of sound to everything he conducted in a one size fits all way .
The Philadelphia orchestra under Ormandy was good for things like Russian and French music , but 
not right for the masterpieces of the Austro-German school , particularly the woodwinds and brass, which just did not have the kind of echt German timbre of the Berlin Philharmonic , which it still has .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

gardibolt said:


> That third set of Beethoven symphonies has always struck me as odd...does anyone know whether they were his idea or DG's? Was it just to have a digital set out in the market, even though the 1962 and 1977 sets are perfectly well recorded?


It's because he wanted a digital set. Also the recordings were used for his video recordings I think. The recordings are actually not so clea as the analogues.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

gardibolt said:


> Well, I meant third DG cycle.


Fair enough, too!


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

I've always wondered what a Karajan-conducted Brahms Piano Concerto No.1 might have been like. Obviously, the soloist would make a big difference to this but I'd love to know what Herbie would have done with this most powerful of concertos.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Charlie Mac said:


> I've always wondered what a Karajan-conducted Brahms Piano Concerto No.1 might have been like. Obviously, the soloist would make a big difference to this but I'd love to know what Herbie would have done with this most powerful of concertos.


Apparently he avoided it. No-one knew why


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> Same thing with Bruckner, there are some nice individual symphonies, the 8th and 9th I mentioned are excellent, but for an overall cycle Jochum's cycle on EMI with the Staatskapelle Dresden are far superior.


That is quite a claim (the first I have ever read). I wonder why you think that. If anything, Karajan's Bruckner is always transcending, splendor in architecture, consistently moving and compelling, spiritual yet analytical (esp. with regards to the Fifth), majestic yet powerful. Jochum by contrast is propulsive and spontaneous, quite as spiritual yet decidedly more earthbound, more liberty taken in regards to tempi and architectural scope. And besides, his orchestra, however great, must yield to the Berlin PO in overall execution and blend.

I respect your opinion, of course. But I find it curious all the same.
:tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I've read that claim many times in the past. There appear to be lots of Bruckner fans who consider the Jochum EMI the best on the market.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> What's Schoenberg?


Wannabe Wagner.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Hmm, maybe not as ecstatic as furtwangler or as forceful as bohm but he definitely makes things sound pretty. That said I'm not a critic of performers.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

superhorn said:


> The Philadelphia orchestra under Ormandy was good for things like Russian and French music , but
> not right for the masterpieces of the Austro-German school , particularly the woodwinds and brass, which just did not have the kind of echt German timbre of the Berlin Philharmonic , which it still has .


Do you suppose that the woodwinds and brass the composers of the Austro-German school heard playing their masterpieces sounded like the Berlin Philharmonic of the 1970s?


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

The record needs to be set straight about Karajan's late output.

The discs with the remastered 1980s third and eighth symphonies of Beethoven are both stupendous recordings that feature Karajan at his best.

Anyone complaining about the instrumental balance in his recordings should listen to these performances, where the brass is ringing like burnished gold.

Other splendid late recordings of Karajan include his Finlandia and Holberg suite on a Grieg/Sibelius disc, also remastered.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> I've read that claim many times in the past. There appear to be lots of Bruckner fans who consider the Jochum EMI the best on the market.


Conversely, I've heard many Bruckner fans say that they can't stand it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Charlie Mac said:


> Conversely, I've heard many Bruckner fans say that they can't stand it.


From what I've been able to see, Bruckner fans either generally side with Wand or Jochum. Celibidache, Karajan etc. are another whole conversation altogether.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> From what I've been able to see, Bruckner fans either generally side with Wand or Jochum. Celibidache, Karajan etc. are another whole conversation altogether.


I know many Bruckner fans who dislike both Wand and Jochum - I'm not a massive fan of either, I have to say.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Charlie Mac said:


> I know many Bruckner fans who dislike both Wand and Jochum - I'm not a massive fan of either, I have to say.


Who do you prefer?


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Well, Wand is, IMHO, a little boring. I find him something of a fence-sitter in most repertoire, to be honest - and Bruckner needs more than that. Haitink is another conductor who simply leaves me a bit, well, unmoved. Both Wand and Haitink produce consistently very respectable performances and recordings, but 'very respectable' isn't exciting, moving or interesting. To my mind, both Wand and Haitink lack any sense of risk, passion and majesty. Their output always sounds rather middle-of-the-road to me. That's a totally personal opinion, of course.

Jochum is more interesting, but I find his Bruckner symphonies don't quite click, somehow. I'm told his final performance (of Bruckner No.5) is very impressive, but I've not heard it, unfortunately.

Celibidache is more my thing, though I think he pushes the tempi too far and a little bit of tension and drama is lost as a result.

Karajan, Sawallisch, Eichhorn and Horst Stein are my Bruckner preferences.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

HVK was a great conductor.

Evidence: Mahler 9, Sibelius 7, Schumann 2, Bruckner 3. Beethoven 9 (every recording).

Incomparable stuff!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I also agree that he was very inconsistent as a conductor, but I generally avoid him because he never ends up sitting right with me on most repertoire. He seemed to have a single sound he drew out of an orchestra which reflected himself and his attitude towards music in general, and this comes across as narrow minded in interpretation of such a wide repertoire that he recorded. His sound works for me with music by Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss and Tchaikovsky but not so much for most other composers it seems. None of his recordings that I have heard have much respect for clarity of all the lines and are very focussed on the main melody at the expense of drawing out interesting relationships between contrapuntal lines and inner harmonies etc.
> 
> For Mozart and Mahler he's an absolute shocker. :lol:


Except for maybe the Mahler Ninth!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Too much politics, too little music.

Please stick to the topic.

The discussion on Naziism has been moved to http://www.talkclassical.com/40084-german-composers-naziism.html in the Politics and Religion in Classical Music area where members can continue the discusiion


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

For me, the infamous Karajan sound isn't offensive. There was a time when I was very concerned by issues of authenticity and musical anachronisms bothered me. I'm now more interested in what moves, stirs and grips me and, if you want power and passion, Karajan does those things very, very well.

He wasn't a conductor who delivered authenticity - except in something like Bruckner, perhaps. His rendering of Beethoven's Ninth probably bears relatively little resemblance to the way Beethoven conceived this music (e.g. the broad tempo used for the adagio), but it sounds amazing, so it doesn't matter. He makes the music an event. 

That's where I stand on Karajan.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Taggart said:


> Too much politics, too little music.
> 
> Please stick to the topic.
> 
> The discussion on Naziism has been moved to http://www.talkclassical.com/40084-german-composers-naziism.html in the Politics and Religion in Classical Music area where members can continue the discusiion


Except we can't because it's locked. I have to also say that I find it quite interesting that mods can create threads in other member's name!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Dim7 said:


> Except we can't because it's locked. I have to also say that I find it quite interesting that mods can create threads in other member's name!


Oops. Open now.

You post started the fork so you get the honour of the new thread.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

hpowders said:


> HVK was a great conductor.
> 
> Evidence: Mahler 9, Sibelius 7, Schumann 2, Bruckner 3. Beethoven 9 (every recording).
> 
> Incomparable stuff!


The guy seemed to have a very high opinion of himself, but that may have been a matter of who he listened to. Posts like yours could pump up a lot of egos.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I prefer my godlike geniuses as mad megalomaniacs, thank you very much. Karajan fits the bill. I often find myself listening to new recordings of Bruckner symphonies and then thinking "Karajan does this better".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ukko said:


> The guy seemed to have a very high opinion of himself, but that may have been a matter of who he listened to. Posts like yours could pump up a lot of egos.


I think if we omit conductors who have a high opinion of themselves the remainder will be very thin on the ground!


----------



## KrystianMartin (Sep 27, 2015)

I like all of the composers and I know I am new but those that I had possibility to see or hear on tv or radio I truly appreciate beyond their preferences be it political or religious. The same is with him. I truly appreciate and enjoy all of his works, no matter which one you will name it - all are truly interesting and I would like to thank for this to him.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Orfeo said:


> That is quite a claim (the first I have ever read). I wonder why you think that. If anything, Karajan's Bruckner is always transcending, splendor in architecture, consistently moving and compelling, spiritual yet analytical (esp. with regards to the Fifth), majestic yet powerful. Jochum by contrast is propulsive and spontaneous, quite as spiritual yet decidedly more earthbound, more liberty taken in regards to tempi and architectural scope. And besides, his orchestra, however great, must yield to the Berlin PO in overall execution and blend.


I would argue the exact opposite and I find the Staatskapelle Dresden's execution and blend to be better than that of Berlin. The recording quality is better which also allows for better balances as well as Jochum's highly detailed dynamics which Karajan would some times glance over.

Bruckner is about momentum for me, consistently moving as you put it. Take Karajan's heavy approach to the slow movement in Symphony 2. For me it loses the momentum he created previously, while Jochum continues to build.

In the end it's different strokes for different folks. I find the entire cycle from Jochum on the whole to be superior when taken as a complete cycle. Better balances, better momentum, better recording quality, finer attention to small details, etc. Karajan isn't bad and I'm not saying it should be avoided. I would never tell someone who is discovering Bruckner and just bought Karajan's Bruckner cycle that they made a mistake. There are just things I look for and small details in my opinion that Karajan would sometimes overlook where Jochum would create finer details which is why I rate his cycle "overall" as better.

Everybody has their favorites and I don't know that there is a single recording that everyone on this forum would agree upon as being great.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

DavidA said:


> I think if we omit conductors who have a high opinion of themselves the remainder will be very thin on the ground!


You probably are wrong to omit the 'very' from my post. On a scale of 1 to 5, high opinion is a 4, very high opinion is a 5.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Woodduck, we will never know exactly what those orchestras sounded like until a time machine is invented and in use .
But the woodwind and brass of the Berlin Philharmonic under Karajan just sound much more "right" to me and others in music by Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, and Richard Strauss etc than the woodwinds and brass of the Philadelphia orchestra .
For example , the trumpets of the Philadelphia used to play with a kind of jazzy vibrato which is just not appropriate for Austro German music , and the Philadelphia horns sounded rather thin compared to those of Berlin , and the oboes in Philadelphia sound a bit bland, lacking the pungent reedy tone of the Berlin oboes .
Hearing the Philadelphia orchestra under Ormandy in Wagner etc was sort of like hearing an American actor playing the role of a German or Austrian aristocrat with his native Brooklyn accent ; but the Berliners sounded authentically German, and still do .


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I've probably written this before, but I talked to an older guy who knew another guy who had seen Karajan conducting in a concert: he had been wearing a CAPE. 

Also, I see Karajan often in my dreams. He's hard to approach and grumpy, unless you start to talk to him about his conducting, in which case he becomes excited and raving.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Sometimes I feel Karajan enjoyed an undeserved ubiquity, but then he was always in demand as a recording artist and especially in his later years his recording output was a little patchy in quality he seemed more interested in quantity. He was still capable of some of the best music out there. Godlike? Meglomaniac? well Karajan, He was this guy you know...


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

What I admire about Karajan is that he was a true artist; he created his own path and stuck to that. He knew what he wanted and carved his own identity. He didn't, seemingly, care about the perceptions of others. Everything he did was self-motivated.

Most of all, he has been dead for more than a quarter of a century and we're still talking about him - and many of his recordings are still stunning and definitive. 

What more can you say?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Charlie Mac said:


> What I admire about Karajan is that he was a true artist; he created his own path and stuck to that. He knew what he wanted and carved his own identity. He didn't, seemingly, care about the perceptions of others. Everything he did was self-motivated.
> 
> Most of all, he has been dead for more than a quarter of a century and we're still talking about him - and many of his recordings are still stunning and definitive.
> 
> What more can you say?


That's actually what I don't like about him...I care more about composers than conductors!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Karajan will always be remembered a conductor most active from the 1950s onward. As time moves on, more and more new and very capable composers will crowd out each other, not just Karajan. But the marketing teams of record companies might still do a nice job to "promote" Karajan. I don't listen to Karajan much because the choice of other newer conductors is huge.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Karajan will always be remembered a conductor most active from the 1950s onward. As time moves on, more and more new and very capable composers will crowd out each other, not just Karajan. But the marketing teams of record companies might still do a nice job to "promote" Karajan. I don't listen to Karajan much because the choice of other newer conductors is huge.


I want to click *like* more and more and more to this....I feel like-just for a moment-we are seeing eye to eye exactly on this one topic more than any other thing that either of us have written on talk classical


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

I feel a true artist is someone distinctive, someone difficult to ignore. Karajan was, by this definition at least, a true artist. 

Admiring Karajan is not about subjugation of composers. Conductors are an integral part of the world of classical music and I don't think it's healthy for all conductors to be anodyne.

I like creative people with strong personal ideas, people who are unconcerned by the possible ridicule of others - Currentzis is a modern example of this approach to conducting - and thus I find Karajan admirable as a conductor. I like some eccentricity and egotism in the world of music.

I think there are lots of very good conductors around now, but has the art not become a little less personality driven - and thus blander? Perhaps this is as a result of the rise of complete fidelity to the score as the main performing goal?

But it's funny how Currentzis is lambasted for trying to get as close to a faithful performance of Mozart's da Ponte operas as possible, while Karajan is criticised for disrespecting the composer's intentions. 

Perhaps the majority of people will only accept a middle of the road approach but, to me, blander is not better.

Too many modern recordings lack identify; they could have been performed by almost any one of several conductors and orchestras.

Interestingly, I think a similar thing has happened in the world of popular music: where are the Lennons or Bowies these days?

Are we afraid of anyone who wants to be a true trendsetter in the 21st century?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I find that sometimes complete fidelity to the _score_ is a limiting thing, too much faithfulness and a conductor will achieve nothing but a robotic realisation of the notes on the page. It's a faithfulness to _style_ which is the most important. Faithfulness to the style of the composer and the style of the era the music was composed in is by far more important that as long as there is the ability to always create an idiosyncratic sound and a fresh look at old repertoire. Conductors are just a vehicle through which the great minds of composers exist. The sounds in their head would never be heard without musicians.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Very few conductors could get away with faithfulness to the score as an obsession. Arturo Toscanini was brilliant in that respect.

On the other extreme, I'm reminded of Erich Leinsdorf. At his Boston Symphony and New York Philharmonic concerts, he never conducted the same piece twice. Always experimenting and trying new ways to play the warhorses.
I found his performances to be very refreshing.

For some reason, as great a conductor as he was, Arturo Toscanini never achieved the "godlike" status of von Karajan.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

All I am able to judge Karajan by are his particular recordings. Two recent operas I watched were conducted by Karajan: Il Trovatore 1978 from Vienna and Don Carlo (doh!) 1986 from Salzburg.
First of all, Karajan does not seem to notice the singers, as he tends to plough through the score not paying much attention what happens on stage.
He managed to pull Miserere at such an unbelievably slow pace, in my opinion totally ruining its effect. Kabaivanska simply got out of breath and was visibly struggling to follow; struggling - not against the part which may be a bit heavy for her light voice - but against the conductor. Karajan allows her to survive - by cutting the whole of the following cabaletta. Thus passes my most beloved scene in Il Trovatore.
Next, in Don Carlo the tempo problems continued and I wonder if the terrible scream Baltsa let out during the "Ah! Piu non vedro la Regina" was directed at Karajan.
All in all, I am very very very doubtful when it comes to Karajan the opera conductor in particular.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Azol said:


> All I am able to judge Karajan by are his particular recordings. Two recent operas I watched were conducted by Karajan: Il Trovatore 1978 from Vienna and Don Carlo (doh!) 1986 from Salzburg.
> First of all, Karajan does not seem to notice the singers, as he tends to plough through the score not paying much attention what happens on stage.
> He managed to pull Miserere at such an unbelievably slow pace, in my opinion totally ruining its effect. Kabaivanska simply got out of breath and was visibly struggling to follow; struggling - not against the part which may be a bit heavy for her light voice - but against the conductor. Karajan allows her to survive - by cutting the whole of the following cabaletta. Thus passes my most beloved scene in Il Trovatore.
> Next, in Don Carlo the tempo problems continued and I wonder if the terrible scream Baltsa let out during the "Ah! Piu non vedro la Regina" was directed at Karajan.
> All in all, I am very very very doubtful when it comes to Karajan the opera conductor in particular.


Mmm. An interesting analysis.

Trouble is, I've not heard a better overall Cosi Fan Tutte than Karajan's - not, by any means, an easy opera to get right.

The same applies to Der Rosenkavalier and Madama Butterfly.


----------



## Azol (Jan 25, 2015)

Charlie Mac said:


> Mmm. An interesting analysis.
> 
> Trouble is, I've not heard a better overall Cosi Fan Tutte than Karajan's - not, by any means, an easy opera to get right.
> 
> The same applies to Der Rosenkavalier and Madama Butterfly.


I am going to agree about Madama Butterfly and, for instance, La Boheme - sometimes it just worked!


----------



## gardibolt (May 22, 2015)

Toscanini was huge back in his day....had he lived and actively conducted farther into the stereo era he probably would have more resonance now, but he unfortunately gets relegated to the historic dustbin too easily because he's not in modern sound. Karajan had the benefit of both a long career and an enormous number of recordings, a great many of them in sound that's perfectly acceptable to modern ears. Displacing his gigantic presence is not going to be easy as a result.


----------



## Charlie Mac (May 23, 2015)

Sir Simon Rattle (not my favourite conductor, but I digress) said that he can't foresee another figure like Karajan coming along. I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

All I hear when Karajan conducts is 'WOOOSH . . . WOOOOOOSH . . .'


----------

