# Why is Mehta's reputation as it is?



## Lord Lance

I know the framing leaves the question's nature vague but my articulation isn't perfect like a Dickens or a some guy or a PetrB.

My question asks: Mehta has had a long career. He has led some of the finest orchestras: Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic, New York Philharmonic, Bayerisches Staatsorchester, and yet we rarely hear his name when accolades are being poured or the greatest conductors lists being prepared or when the composer's conductor is named [Bernstein was a mighty Nielsenien (?), for example, Mravinsky and Tchaikovsky, Rozhdestvensky and all of Western Music or Karajan did mighty fine Sibelius] or even when recommendations are made [Ormandy comes to mind but he gets the occasional mention]. What is it about Mehta? Is he merely a conductors whose interpretations are far too eccentric [much like another underrated conductor Maazel (known and respected but not much else)]? Or do his interpretations merely not hold ground compared to the 'giants'?

_Pardon me for my side-thought and thought within a side-thought. _


----------



## Triplets

He was thought to be a superstar conductor until he landed in New York. The critics there collectively trashed him and he never recovered.


----------



## Eramirez156

Mehta's rep like Maazel's, and Ozawa's has suffered, because of an uneven recorded legacy and perhaps more so, because he was the conductor of the circus that was the *Three Tenors Concerts* and a number of *Bocelli* albums.Still I wouldn't give up his recordings of Mahler 2, Bruckner 9, Turnadot, or Franz Schmidt Symp. no.4.


----------



## Lord Lance

Triplets said:


> He was thought to be a superstar conductor until he landed in New York. The critics there collectively trashed him...


Was he so adventurous with his concerts that the traditionalist critics just bashed him endlessly or was the New York landscape not conducive to his talents much like Rattle and Berliner Philharmoniker [Well, it can go both ways]. Or was it perhaps merely because he gave a string of terribly unprepared/under-rehearsed and indistinguishable concerts during his tenure?



Triplets said:


> ....and he never recovered.


Recovered? Is his career currently in the dumps? Does no 'major' orchestra want to appoint him as a principal conductor or at least i_nvite _him as a guest conductor? Still, his records are not terrible, right? He produced masterful records? Or is his recording 'legacy' also filled with lackluster albums?



Eramirez156 said:


> Mehta's rep like Maazel's, and Ozawa's has suffered, because of an uneven recorded legacy and perhaps more so, because he was the conductor of the circus that was the *Three Tenors Concerts* and a number of *Bocelli* albums.Still I wouldn't give up his recordings of Mahler 2, Bruckner 9, Turnadot, or Franz Schmidt Symp. no.4.


Why was the Three Tenor Concerts a circus? Are those three tenors the most superstar ones in the field of Tenors or just self-proclaimed greats? More importantly, what did they do in these concerts that it became a circus?


----------



## Becca

I would dispute the superstar comment about his LA days, I think that was strictly a PR creation. Even early in his career as music director of the LA Philharmonic, his work was very uneven and to these ears (I went to many of his concerts) rather superficial. Just as he got trashed by the NY critics, his reputation in Los Angeles wasn't helped by being succeeded by Carlo Maria Giulini - talk about a world of difference! I should also add that along with Giulini, we also got a young Simon Rattle and Michael Tilson Thomas as principal guest conductors.


----------



## Guest

In L.A., where I attended dozens of his concerts, he was consistently good. And the repertoire was very nicely varied. Much better than it's ever been since.

Even though he had a couple of really splendid recordings, he was primarily a concert conductor, not a recording conductor. And who, even today, is going to be known for doing early recordings of Varese?

Anyway, I liked his live conducting very much. Never felt let down. I love some of Salonen's recordings very much. I never once felt satisfied at one of his live shows. I had pretty much cut back to Green Umbrella concerts only by then, but each new conductor got some attention at first. By the time Dudamel took over, I was in Oregon.


----------



## joen_cph

I like his Schmidt´s 4th, les so his controversial Bruckner 9th, and that´s about it.




(BTW, I don´t agree about the Israel Philharmonic belonging to the top orchestras  )


----------



## ptr

I've only seen him live once, but I've always felt his recordings safe and quite uninspired, its those few Los Angeles PO recordings that cut slightly above par, Mahler Two, Varese and Mosolov, might be that the Decca recording team was more inspiring then!
Might also be that he, like Herbert Blomstedt is an orchestra builder that leaves a much better band behind him for the next music director to thrive on! 

/ptr


----------



## Guest

He did an impossible to find recording of Mussorgsky's _Pictures at an Exhibition_ as orchestrated by Ravel that is hands down the finest performance of that I have ever heard.

(And yes, I AM hoping someone here knows where a copy of that is.)

I also wanted to point out that while Becca and I--who were evidently both there at the time--may seem to disagree about Mehta, it might be just the concerts we each chose to go to. I chose to go to the ones that had contemporary music on them. All the ones I attended were fine. Mehta never missed a step in any of the shows I saw, even with the older repertoire.

But I didn't go to every concert. And Becca's observation about inconsistency is probably also accurate. She could very easily have seen dozens of concerts where Mehta missed all sorts of steps, and maybe even skipped a beat or two, who knows? I only know what I saw in the concerts I did go to, which was a world-class orchestra and a world-class conductor doing consistently great work.

[I also, full disclosure, came to L.A. fresh from the vernal fields of Vallejo and Napa, which, whatever their virtues, did not include world-class symphony orchestras. As Lennon once quipped about Ringo not even being the best drummer on the Beatles, so I can say that the Vallejo symphony was not even the best orchestra in Vallejo.]


----------



## DavidA

Lord Lance said:


> Why was the Three Tenor Concerts a circus? Are those three tenors the most superstar ones in the field of Tenors or just self-proclaimed greats? More importantly, what did they do in these concerts that it became a circus?


The Three Tenors began with an inspired concert at the world cup that lifted the profile of opera. After that it became a bit of a circus but the original has some fabulous singing on it by two all-time great tenors and one very good tenor, even though by then illness had afflicted Carreras somewhat. No need for Mehta to feel ashamed of this - a great occasion.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

He knows how to Webern.


----------



## Orfeo

I always thought highly of Mehta, watching him conduct a few times courtesy of PBS during the 1980s and 1990s. Granted he's not my favorite (he hardly touches the repertoire I found myself in identity with), he's quite up there in my book. He's a very good Mahler conductor, an okay Brucknerian (his recording with the Israel Philharmonic is quite a dud though), and yes, his recording of Schmidt's Fourth Symphony is still the best on record, and one of the most gripping recordings I've ever come across. His Nielsen (Fourth Symphony) is superb also.

Also, Mehta became sort of a landmark conductor (the first minority, if you will, to lead a major North American orchestra, which is the LA Philharmonic). And his achievements there in the west, however uneven, are nothing to sneeze at given the era that witnessed his rather apparent ascension as a musician. But his NY arrival, right after Bernstein (and still beloved), was not well timed I would argue, and some would claim that Mehta tried too hard to fill Lenny's shoes (a writer of Gramophone in particular made that claim in an issue of the mid-1990s I remember reading). I think he had a valid point.

Reputation-wise, I'll group him more or less with Maazel, Masur, maybe Kondrashin, as great, "non-rock stars" type conductors like, for instances, HvK, Bernstein, Solti, and now Dudamel, Salonen, arguably Rattle, Vladimir Jurowski.


----------



## Musicophile

I don't have any memorable Mehta album. This is probably the best one:


----------



## Lord Lance

Ah, perhaps the Indian kapellmeister wasn't as great as I thought his reputation made him out to be.


----------



## Eramirez156

Lord Lance said:


> Was he so adventurous with his concerts that the traditionalist critics just bashed him endlessly or was the New York landscape not conducive to his talents much like Rattle and Berliner Philharmoniker [Well, it can go both ways]. Or was it perhaps merely because he gave a string of terribly unprepared/under-rehearsed and indistinguishable concerts during his tenure?
> 
> Recovered? Is his career currently in the dumps? Does no 'major' orchestra want to appoint him as a principal conductor or at least i_nvite _him as a guest conductor? Still, his records are not terrible, right? He produced masterful records? Or is his recording 'legacy' also filled with lackluster albums?
> 
> Why was the Three Tenor Concerts a circus? Are those three tenors the most superstar ones in the field of Tenors or just self-proclaimed greats? More importantly, what did they do in these concerts that it became a circus?


"circus" in terms of all the media hype that surrounded them, and for awhile you couldn't turn on public television during their pledge drives without running into one of them. They just out wore their welcome.

On the other hand the Ring cycle he conducted here in 1993 was superb. His recordings are not without merit, just it hard to think one that would be my first choice, outside of some his opera recordings.

Time will give us perspective on his legacy, and for the record I thought the first three tenors concert was great fun.


----------



## padraic

Can't say I've ever had anyone recommend me Mehta for anything, really. His Mahler 2 is apparently well received, but I didn't care for it much.


----------



## superhorn

AS far as I'm concerned , Mehta is the most underrated conductor of all time . For some reason , lots of music critics either can't stand his conducting or just dismiss him as a superficial glamor boy, even though this is grossly unfair . 
When he took the LA Phil. over in the early 60s as a young man still in his 20s , it was an OK orchestra, but hardly one of the worlds finest . But he built it into one of the greatest , even though many critics refuse to acknowledge the fact . The orchestra got a contract with Decca, and Mehta and the orchestra made some absolutely terrific recordings oworks by Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss 
and other composers . 
If you compare the recordings made by the NY Phil. at the time , the LA orchestra sounds much warmer , colorful and refined than their New York counterparts . The NY Phil. brass are coarse and blary , while the Los Angeles brass have a burnished splendor which is worthy of the Vienna Phil .
Perhaps his exotic origins in India and leading the orchestra of tinseltown led to critics to dismiss him as a superficial glamor boy, but the facts contradict this . Like his conducting or not, Mehta has always been a serious and dedicated musician , and he received a rigorous training at the Vienna academy where he studied conducting with the famously demanding conductor and conducting teacher Hans Swarowsky, who considered him to be his best pupil . Do you think Swarowsky would even have accepted Mehta into his conducting class if he were a mediocrity and non-entity and a shallow musician ? 
Critics have falsely accused Mehta of being indifferent to contemporary music and neglecting it, even though nothing could be farther form the truth . Mehta has actually done a great deal more challenging modern music than many other renowned conductors ! He has never shrunk from performing music by the likes of Messiaen, Carter , Lutoslawski, Penderecki and so many other 
composers who are considered to be box office poison, and has been a consistent champion of the music of Schoenberg and Webern despite connservative audiences .
When Giulini succeeded him in LA , hostile critics claimed that the revered Italian maestro has "transformed the orchestra into a world-class ensemble ", which is ridiculous ,. It already was one !
And how much contemporary music did Giulini do with the orchestra ? Zip. Nada. Zilch .
That wasn't his thing , and never was . Yes, Giulini w as a great conductor , no doubt about it, but he was no orchestra builder .
Unfortunately , too many of the New York critics treated Mehta like crap in New York . It's one thing if a critic doesn't like the work of a paricular conductor , but what these New York critics wrote about him wasn't music criticism - it was character assassination !
The Israel Philharmonic , a self-governing orchestra which chooses its conductors , voted him music director for life . Would this have happened if Mehta were a lousy conductor ? Are you 
kidding ? 
Mehta is also a terrific opera conductor who has appeared regularly at Covent Garden ,Munich, 
the Vienna State opera , and other leading opera ocmpanies . I just saw the DVD of his Tristan & Islode the other day from Munich with a dream cast - Walraud Meier , Jon Fredric West ,Kurt Moll, Marjana Lipovsek and Bernd Weikl . Despite the somewhat hokey production by Peter Konwitschny , it was musically a Tristan to die for ! Don't miss this DVD ! The ocnducting was worthy of such greats as Furtwangler and Knappertsbusch !


----------



## Orfeo

^^^
I cannot think of anything to argue with you Superhorn, especially the fourth paragraph (in some ways, he was like Bruce Lee in North America: ahead of his time, but with folks having a stubborn refusal to accept him and what he was trying to do). Bias can indeed be a poisonous thing, to self and to others.

Incidentally, you remind me of Bertrand Russell, who once said that "racism is the greatest threat known to man: the maximum of hatred, for a minimal of reason." I would argue that greed and ignorance are the greatest threats, but brother do I love that quote.


----------



## Triplets

Lord Lance said:


> Was he so adventurous with his concerts that the traditionalist critics just bashed him endlessly or was the New York landscape not conducive to his talents much like Rattle and Berliner Philharmoniker [Well, it can go both ways]. Or was it perhaps merely because he gave a string of terribly unprepared/under-rehearsed and indistinguishable concerts during his tenure?
> 
> Recovered? Is his career currently in the dumps? Does no 'major' orchestra want to appoint him as a principal conductor or at least i_nvite _him as a guest conductor? Still, his records are not terrible, right? He produced masterful records? Or is his recording 'legacy' also filled with lackluster albums?
> 
> Why was the Three Tenor Concerts a circus? Are those three tenors the most superstar ones in the field of Tenors or just self-proclaimed greats? More importantly, what did they do in these concerts that it became a circus?


When he took to NY job, it was a big deal. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, a formerly relevent publication in the pre digital era (I feel compelled to add that for millenials). I am not sure why he was pilloried by the Critics there. Inconsistency, or the perception of it, was a factor. I think his programming was felt not to be adventurous by the Modern Music Crowd, and too adventurous by the more Conservative listeners.
Perhaps some Anti Semitism was involved, since he has a long relationship with the Isreal PO and was very tight with the "Kosher Nostra" (Isacc Stern, Pinchas Zuckerman, Itzhak Perlman, Daniel Barenboim)--attacking Mehta was safer than directly attacking his associates.
At any rate, his reputation never quite recovered, not to the extent that other great Conductors have been able to overcome 
bad tenures (think Barbirolli in NY, Kubelik and Martinon in Chicago, Welser-Most in London--they all survived disasterous critical receptions and landed on their feet
Perceptions are reality. The perception was that he had failed in New York, whatever the true status of the affair was. On a lesser scale, Alan Gilbert will have to carry a similar albatross for another NY Phil tenure that didn't quite live up to it's high hopes.


----------



## EDaddy

Could it be a Mehta data issue?

:lol:


----------



## GKC

I love his Vienna Mahler second. Probably is my favorite.


----------



## Lord Lance

Triplets said:


> When he took to NY job, it was a big deal. He was on the cover of Time Magazine, a formerly relevent publication in the pre digital era (I feel compelled to add that for millenials). I am not sure why he was pilloried by the Critics there. Inconsistency, or the perception of it, was a factor. I think his programming was felt not to be adventurous by the Modern Music Crowd, and too adventurous by the more Conservative listeners.
> Perhaps some Anti Semitism was involved, since he has a long relationship with the Isreal PO and was very tight with the "Kosher Nostra" (Isacc Stern, Pinchas Zuckerman, Itzhak Perlman, Daniel Barenboim)--attacking Mehta was safer than directly attacking his associates.
> At any rate, his reputation never quite recovered, not to the extent that other great Conductors have been able to overcome
> bad tenures (think Barbirolli in NY, Kubelik and Martinon in Chicago, Welser-Most in London--they all survived disasterous critical receptions and landed on their feet
> Perceptions are reality. The perception was that he had failed in New York, whatever the true status of the affair was. On a lesser scale, Alan Gilbert will have to carry a similar albatross for another NY Phil tenure that didn't quite live up to it's high hopes.


Alan Gilbert's era is seen as mostly a dud?


----------



## Mahlerian

Lord Lance said:


> Alan Gilbert's era is seen as mostly a dud?


Yes. I like his programming, but his performances seem pretty average.


----------



## ptr

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. I like his programming, but his performances seem pretty average.


Was the same when he was in Stockholm, very much like Franz worser then the most, a prodigy who will show results 30 or so years after their breakthrough, so Gilbert will be fab in about 20!

/ptr


----------



## Steatopygous

Mehta to me is a fine conductor, widely admired by musicians. the disdain may be more an American thing.


----------



## Lord Lance

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. I like his programming, but his performances seem pretty average.


Suspected as much. Doesn't seem to be a dynamite conductor or person.

Perhaps, he will grow to become something much better and noteworthy when he is 70.


----------



## Albert7

Mehta is hit and miss. I do like the fact he went out of the box sometimes in his choices.


----------



## Polyphemus

Like ALL conductors Metha had his hits and misses. Mostly hits I suggest and his Mahler 2 is one of the best. 
When one presumes to criticise any recording of the two giant ego's Lennie and Herbie then howls of protest pour in from all angles, yet it seems to be acceptable to pillory lesser mortal's whole careers on some less than complimentary reviews. 
I would not be bothered by the New York reaction, they have quite a record in dispensing with conductors going back to Mahler.


----------



## Orfeo

Mahlerian said:


> Yes. I like his programming, but his performances seem pretty average.


Agree. Not so probing or insightful, but straightforward, sometimes to a fault depending on the work.


----------



## bigshot

Mehta is a great conductor today. One of my favorite current conductors. Early in his career, he spread himself too thin with dates all over the world with little time to establish himself with the orchestra. Because of that, you'll find that his earlier recordings are all over the map. But today, he has matured and has done some spectacular things, chief among them is the Valencia Ring cycle.


----------



## Lord Lance

Polyphemus said:


> Like ALL conductors Metha had his hits and misses. Mostly hits I suggest and his Mahler 2 is one of the best.
> When one presumes to criticise any recording of the two giant ego's Lennie and Herbie then howls of protest pour in from all angles, yet it seems to be acceptable to pillory lesser mortal's whole careers on some less than complimentary reviews.
> I would not be bothered by the New York reaction, they have quite a record in dispensing with conductors going back to Mahler.


Mehta. Hey get us Indian surnames right!

So true. I have always hated how "fans" vehemently oppose any objective criticism. It is as though these artists were their family members.


----------



## Lord Lance

bigshot said:


> Mehta is a great conductor today. One of my favorite current conductors. Early in his career, he spread himself too thin with dates all over the world with little time to establish himself with the orchestra. Because of that, you'll find that his earlier recordings are all over the map. But today, he has matured and has done some spectacular things, chief among them is the Valencia Ring cycle.


I was meaning to ask that. No mention of his various recordings of Mahler's Second? Isn't he the Kaplan of real talent in Mahler 2? An absolute master with one of the best recordings?

Yet, I see Bernstein or Klemperer or Walter trump.


----------



## padraic

Lord Lance said:


> Yet, I see Bernstein or Klemperer or Walter trump.


Tennstedt for me.


----------



## gardibolt

I still like his Also sprach Zarathustra very much.


----------



## Polyphemus

Lord Lance said:


> Mehta. Hey get us Indian surnames right!
> 
> So true. I have always hated how "fans" vehemently oppose any objective criticism. It is as though these artists were their family members.


Deepest apologies in respect of surname spelling blooper. Will atone by playing some of his discs.


----------



## hapiper

When I was looking to build a good collection of Mahler symphonies I had his name recommended to me on many occasions and I consequently have 3 Mahler's by him. While maybe not superstar status he is certainly not reviled to any degree.


----------



## Lord Lance

hapiper said:


> When I was looking to build a good collection of Mahler symphonies I had his name recommended to me on many occasions and I consequently have 3 Mahler's by him. While maybe not superstar status he is certainly not reviled to any degree.


Which 3, Hapiper?


----------



## hapiper

Well I actually have 2 copies of Mahlers Symphony #2 because I bought the wrong one the first time and I also have his Mahler Symphony #1 with the Israel Philharmonic


----------



## Steatopygous

I see Gramophone ranks Mehta's Turandot top of the pile


----------



## Lord Lance

Steatopygous said:


> I see Gramophone ranks Mehta's Turandot top of the pile


I stopped reading after Gramophone. Those people are no-goods. Although, their six cycles to celebrate Mahler's birthday was indeed good.


----------



## ormandy

In this interview, Philip Myers (Principal Horn, NY Phil) has some uncomplimentary things to say about Mehta's inability to conduct certain pieces (listen beginning at 4:30).






ormandy


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Frankly, for many years I never really took time to listen to Mehta. I eventually decided to give his Dvorak Seventh with the Israel Philharmonic a try, and wound up liking it very much. I then moved on to his Schubert Symphony recordings with the same orchestra, and found them to be quite musical and relaxing, generally even more so than Kertesz's Schubert on the same London/Decca label. I've also found quite satisfying Mehta's performances of Richard Strauss' Ein Heldenleben and Also Sprach Zarathustra with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and his finely recorded Brahms First with the Vienna Philharmonic. In fact, London/Decca's recording engineers deserve high praise for their excellent job of having produced balanced, natural sounding analog (yes, analog) recordings without the kind of excessive treble emphasis found on a fairly good number of other discs which have come from some other classical labels. I have my eye on several other Mehta recordings which I've not yet auditioned, and am confident of reaping additional rewards.


----------



## Pugg

Listen to his Turandot recording, it's a small miracle.


----------



## hpowders

I subscribed to the NY Philharmonic when Zubin Mehta was the music director. He had a reputation for being a superficial showman, but he could occasionally produce inspired performances, such as the Mahler Symphony No. 2.


----------



## Pugg

Steatopygous said:


> I see Gramophone ranks Mehta's Turandot top of the pile


Yes, for years to come.


----------



## amfortas

I second the praise for his Mahler 2nd and _Turandot_. Also his top-notch studio _Trovatore_.


----------



## mtangent

I enjoyed his early recordings with the VPO. 
Tried a few after his move to LA and found them lackluster. 

I can't speak for his opera work, but I totally enjoyed the 3 Tenors series. 
It is what it is... Terrific vocalists singing wonderfully... And the chance to see their different styles was priceless!


----------



## mtangent

I was thrilled to finally find a cd of his Bruckner 9 with the VPO a few years back. (Legendary Decca Performances)
It was my first 9th and will always remain special... 
His early symphonic recordings were terrific. A number here have mentioned a great Mahler 2.


----------



## LOLWUT

He's not a good conductor. Listen to his Mahler, it's even worse than Gergiev's.


----------



## motoboy

LOLWUT said:


> He's not a good conductor. Listen to his Mahler, it's even worse than Gergiev's.


What an appropriate name you have chosen...


----------



## Mal

I like him in this:


----------



## Heck148

Mehta can be very good in a rather wide range of repertoire - His LAPO recordings from 60s are overall very good - 
He has produced some very fine versions of Rite of Spring - both LAPO and NYPO, and overall,m his R. Strauss performances are very fine, among the best. 
I have a taped concert broadcast he did of Symphonia Domestica c 1990, with Chicago SO, that is absolutely out of sight brilliant!!...best I've ever heard, with some stunning, miraculous orchestra execution....he also produced a fine disc of Strauss opera excerpts with Berlin, 1990...wonderful repertoire, orchestra sounds very good, far better than it did under vK.

I'm not sure why he is


----------

