# Why Are Some Conductors Considered Good In Some Pieces Than Others?



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I have an example:

Back when John Eliot Gardiner was releasing his Bach Cantatas (on individual disks) they were expensive (to my pocket book). I really wanted the Gardiner version but decided on the complete Harnoncourt instead because of price. (Big Box)

Harnoncourt is a respected conductor so I'm wondering why his is so dismissed? Is it because Gardiner's was considered so much better?


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Is it? I was under the impression that it was considered one of the most widely respected and most groundbreaking Bach cantata cycles (it was one of the first, no?) Perhaps some object to his extensive use of child choirs...? 

In any case, the Gardiner Bach cantatas that I have heard are the worst I've heard. I like Ton Koopman, Masaaki Suzuki, and what I've heard of the Harnoncourt and Leonhardt cantatas.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

People have ideals in their head of what any given work/composer should sound like, and because many conductors have distinctive styles/sounds it's easy for those people to think they don't fit the ideal they have in their head for that work/composer. The most I know about Harnoncourt's Bach cantatas is that many didn't dig the boy sopranos. It was also the first (IIRC) complete cantatas cycle and thus probably has some of the flaws of any "first endeavors." I'm guessing the scholarship had come a long way from then to the time when Gardiner and Suzuki recorded theirs. Sound probably improved as well.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Harnoncourt's was very much a pioneering effort which featured boy sopranos (which Harnoncourt himself dispensed with later) and was made at a time when HIP playing was in its infancy so the instrumental playing is a bit rough to say the least. Gardiner's has the advantage of a superb choir. I'm surprised to hear someone say it's the worst. Certainly Ton Koopman and Masaaki Suzuki are good from what I've heard if you want HIP.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Harnoncourt's use of boy sopranos and the sometimes erratic ensemble make his set a non-starter for me but kudos to him for being the first to attempt an HIP approach to the cantatas. I have the Gardiner set and various Suzuki, Koopman, Herreweghe and Rilling. I love Gardiner. The soloists are generally excellent the performances lively and fresh and not over-produced. Suzuki and Koopman are very good too from what I've heard though more homogeneous. But to the OP's question, it's not so much Harnoncourt's conducting but his artistic decisions and limitations of his orchestra that make his set less desireable to me.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

For me the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt set (or those that I have heard) are still the best musically. They have more heart and soul and seem more strongly linked to a tradition. But they do have their rough moments and some of the boy trebles are not very good. Modern HIP recordings are technically much more accomplished and I have and enjoy a lot of the Suzuki recordings. I guess the reason the OP reports that Gardiner was expensive while Harnoncourt was cheap is that by the time the Gardiners started coming out the Harnoncourt were already quite old. It does seem that as a recording ages the price can fall dramatically .... but then starts to rise again.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> For me the Harnoncourt/Leonhardt set (or those that I have heard) are still the best musically. They have more heart and soul and *seem more strongly linked to a tradition.* But they do have their rough moments and some of the boy trebles are not very good. Modern HIP recordings are technically much more accomplished and I have and enjoy a lot of the Suzuki recordings. I guess the reason the OP reports that Gardiner was expensive while Harnoncourt was cheap is that by the time the Gardiners started coming out the Harnoncourt were already quite old. It does seem that as a recording ages the price can fall dramatically .... but then starts to rise again.


More strongly inked into a tradition? What tradition? Harnoncourt was one of the pioneers of HIP. There was little or no tradition when he started recording the cantatas.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Find the same with some soloists. One pianist that I can mention is excellent playing Russian Composers but not good at others. Cringe when I hear him perform others too


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> More strongly inked into a tradition? What tradition? Harnoncourt was one of the pioneers of HIP. There was little or no tradition when he started recording the cantatas.


I often _think _I hear Vienna and its long tradition with classical music in Harnoncourt's work. I may be imagining that but there is something there. I heard it before I knew much about Harnoncourt or his links with Vienna. Of course, he is also something of an iconoclast but usually a very musical one.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I often _think _I hear Vienna and its long tradition with classical music in Harnoncourt's work. I may be imagining that but there is something there. I heard it before I knew much about Harnoncourt or his links with Vienna. Of course, he is also something of an iconoclast but usually a very musical one.


Harnoncourt was one of the pioneers of the HIP tradition.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I often _think _I hear Vienna and its long tradition with classical music in Harnoncourt's work. I may be imagining that but there is something there. I heard it before I knew much about Harnoncourt or his links with Vienna. Of course, he is also something of an iconoclast but usually a very musical one.


Yes. I remember reading some memoir of Harnoncourt where he talks of his time before forming the CMW, performing under Karajan at the Wiener Symphoniker, and his feeling that the beauty of sound that was created under Karajan was compelling, but that he sensed that something different could be found in the music. I was impressed the Harnoncourt was not speaking with a tone of resentment, that the tradition way was wrong, but that it wasn't the _only _way.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ashfkjha iasofiuo


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Harnoncourt was one of the pioneers of the HIP tradition.


I'm well aware of that. But he never went the way that many of the others went. He was always a little different. Try listening to his Handel Op.6 (Concerti Grossi) - his alone among the HIP recordings adopted slow and broad speeds where they are (arguably) needed. Pinnock and many other early adopters were brisk throughout and sound rather mechanical as a result.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

All this has nothing to do with quality of music, direction, orchestra, musical project innovation, novelties, etc. It is something simpler (in most of the cases)> Number of copies were made by the music label. Did they made 10.000 with the finest music? No value! Did they made 300 with bullsh…? Super value! Did the title went out of print? Super value! Did they have delete it from their lists? More value! The biggest value have the promo disks, my dearest! 100 pieces, different label (in most cases white) and voila! FFFF it! It has NOTHING to do with quality. It is collectors game (some of my best pieces as money value are awful. Terrible. I never listened to them. But are the best in my collection...) 

*On July, someone I know, has paid 1500 USD in Discogs for Oriental music of one Turkish group made 300 singles of NO MUSIC, 40 years before. He was lucky! It costs the double... FFFFn stories...


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

It's personal preference for most in the end, isn't it?. Each conductor brings their own nuances to a piece, so it ends up on average being subjective. Musicians themselves could have personal interest in a piece of music, or if they play it so often, it becomes dry and robotic for them. Any number of factors can determine quality of a recording. Take this scenario:

Raff, virtually non existent in the concert hall, has a few recordings of his symphonies by different conductors and orchestras. (His symphonies are worthy, in my opinion, of the concert halls beside Mahler, Beethoven, and Mozart, etc.) 

But how do you decide which recordings are "better" with less than 5 complete sets? I am personally going to withhold judgement, and wait to see how I react when Raff receives the exposure he deserves. With more recordings comes more good and "bad" or "unfaithful" recordings. 

But I think you get the gist of my point.


----------



## Faville (Sep 15, 2012)

Swosh said:


> It's personal preference for most in the end, isn't it?. Each conductor brings their own nuances to a piece, so it ends up on average being subjective. Musicians themselves could have personal interest in a piece of music, or if they play it so often, it becomes dry and robotic for them. Any number of factors can determine quality of a recording. Take this scenario:
> 
> Raff, virtually non existent in the concert hall, has a few recordings of his symphonies by different conductors and orchestras. (His symphonies are worthy, in my opinion, of the concert halls beside Mahler, Beethoven, and Mozart, etc.)
> 
> ...


I agree that ultimately it will be subjective for 95% of listeners and pieces. Depending on the composer and era, though, there is justification for more subjective judgement of a work. Gunther Schuller makes an excellent case for actually following what composers wrote in his book The Compleat Conductor. That composers like Brahms, Beethoven, Schumann, Ravel, Tchaikovsky, R. Strauss knew exactly what they wanted and are fairly explicit in their scores (especially to conductors who know how to delve and study), and that there is no reason for a conductor to alter this with their own ideas of what is "right" for the piece.
Of course, the lay listener (or even the pro who does not have the time or advantage of score study) is at a disadvantage and must trust their favorite conductors and orchestras and then judge by how the music moves them, and ultimately who is to judge that?
Baroque/Renaissance/early Classical has a lot of extra room for play.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Swosh said:


> But how do you decide which recordings are "better" with less than 5 complete sets? I am personally going to withhold judgement, and wait to see how I react when Raff receives the exposure he deserves. With more recordings comes more good and "bad" or "unfaithful" recordings.


First, thanks for mentioning Raff. His absence from concert halls is a shame, but then that could be said of many, many other composers too. I have as it happens played some Raff. Symphonies 5 & 9, a Festival March, the Sinfonietta and the Cavatina.

Anyway...there are basically two ways to decide if a recording is good, or better than another. The first is a totally subjective one: how does the listener react? Is it exciting, moving, emotional? Is it in tune and pleasant to listen to? Is this something I would listen to again?

The second method is more rigorous: what does the score say? The score after all is "the Bible" when it comes to music. There are some conductors and critics who believe that the most important job of the performer is to play the music as closely to what the composer wanted as possible. The above mentioned book - which anyone interested in classical music should read - by Gunther Schuller lays it out clearly and goes into sometimes excruciating detail of how many famous conductors get it wrong. Another conductor, Erich Leinsdorf, wrote a book, "The Composer's Advocate" which argues the same thing: your duty is to play the music as the composer intended.

So, evaluating a recording you're in a pickle. How do you do it? I like to take the middle. Some recordings are technically fine, they follow the score to the letter. Every detail, nuance and marking has been followed to a T. And it's boring as hell. Or cold and unmoving. Some flout the composer's intention so freely that I should despise it, yet there's undeniable excitement, thrill and emotional outpourings that are irresistible.

In Raff's case, there isn't a lot of performance tradition to go by. But consider two recordings of the 5th "Lenore": the Jarvi on Chandos and the Herrmann on Unicorn. Both are extremely well played by the orchestras. No issues there. The Unicorn is nearly 50 years old, the Chandos just a few years old, but sound-wise they're both acceptable.

Jarvi follows Raff's metronome marks to the letter. And to me it sounds, herky-jerky. There's no room to breathe, it never relaxes. It's very HIP - and I should give it 5 stars - he plays it how Raff wrote and apparently wanted it. Herrmann takes much more relaxed tempos, adds quite bit of rubato. Tempos far below Raff's marking. Yet it is so much more communicative. It sings, and you can tell the conductor absolutely loved this music. Reviewed objectively, Herrmann's should get a bomb. But reviewed subjectively, it's top of the charts!

You can find reviews of practically anything that are diametrically opposed. I remember when Maazel's Mahler 2nd from Vienna came out. Stereo Review just raved about it, calling it one of the great readings. Norman Lebrecht labeled it a CD that should never have been made, a real CD from hell. Personally, I like it, a lot.

Here's what you have to always remember: no one sets out to make a bad recording. You can't survive in the marketplace if you do. And frankly, most people could never tell the difference between several recordings of a work. Splitting hairs, analyzing every little detail and then awarding a star to someone is a silly and futile exercise. I can enjoy Ravel from Martinon, Dutoit, Cluytens, and Ozawa every bit as much as Ravel from Abaddo, Ormandy, Solti, or Karajan. The music is the important thing. Are there bad recordings? Of course. Sometimes some performers have stupid and weird ideas that should never have been recorded, but thankfully, those are far and few between. (And Mrs. Miller recordings don't count!)


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Yes. I remember reading some memoir of Harnoncourt where he talks of his time before forming the CMW, performing under Karajan at the Wiener Symphoniker, and his feeling that the beauty of sound that was created under Karajan was compelling, but that he sensed that something different could be found in the music. I was impressed the Harnoncourt was not speaking with a tone of resentment, that the tradition way was wrong, but that it wasn't the _only _way.


I saw a documentary about Karajan on TV with quite a lot of Harnoncourt talking, saying much the same thing. He clearly had some affection and lots of admiration for the man as well as being somewhat amused at some of Karajan's foibles.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Back in 1991, Richard Taruskin wrote an excellent article about the Leonhardt/Harnoncourt Bach cantatas:

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/27/arts/recordings-view-facing-up-finally-to-bach-s-dark-vision.html


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> In Raff's case, there isn't a lot of performance tradition to go by. But consider two recordings of the 5th "Lenore": the Jarvi on Chandos and the Herrmann on Unicorn. Both are extremely well played by the orchestras. No issues there. The Unicorn is nearly 50 years old, the Chandos just a few years old, but sound-wise they're both acceptable.
> 
> Jarvi follows Raff's metronome marks to the letter. And to me it sounds, herky-jerky. There's no room to breathe, it never relaxes. It's very HIP - and I should give it 5 stars - he plays it how Raff wrote and apparently wanted it. Herrmann takes much more relaxed tempos, adds quite bit of rubato. Tempos far below Raff's marking. Yet it is so much more communicative. It sings, and you can tell the conductor absolutely loved this music. Reviewed objectively, Herrmann's should get a bomb. But reviewed subjectively, it's top of the charts!


I'm a fan of Raff's Lenore. My favourite version is Stadlmair's, slower but more spontaneous than Jarvi's, but faster than Hermann's which i found a bit too plodding. Requires great judgement, like walking on a tight rope.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

It is, of course, subjective. We all want different things from our music. But I can say as an example: I love Karajan's Brahms but am quite lukewarm on his Bach. Conversely, I love Gardiner's Bach but am lukewarm on his Brahms.











The music has its own strengths, and is best paired with a conductor and orchestra that shares those strengths. Bach is all about light interplay between musical lines, and Karajan is typically not very light. He and the BPO prefer a booming, blow your hair back sound. So Gardiner is a better fit. Brahms is filled with much more swelling, stormy, romantic sounds. And so the preferences are reversed - Gardiner's Brahms sounds shrill, punctuated and whiny, while Karajan's aesthetic fits the music better.











But this is just my own preference. Maybe someone wants a really fast Brahms with thinner orchestration, and maybe someone wants a really plush Bach.


----------

