# Best and Worst Recordings: Karajan



## MatthewWeflen

I have been thinking about the music particular conductors are very good or very bad at directing. Now, my knowledge wheelhouse is Karajan, so here's a stab at his best and worst (a similar exercise would be a lot of fun with other large-catalog conductors like Bernstein, Solti, etc.):

*His best:*









Strauss is an area of little argument, even among HvK's detractors. I find this 1973 recording of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" to be the finest one I've heard. The dynamics, especially in the famous opening, are just pulse pounding, but the solos and softer elements are treated with the utmost delicacy. This is the benchmark I measure other renditions by, and all have come up wanting.









Similarly, his Alpensinfonie is tough to beat. This 1981 recording was maligned as an early "bad" digital DG record, but remastering has revealed it to be a wonderful account of this tone poem.









Speaking of digital recordings, this 1983 recording of Metamorphosen and Tod und Verklarung is just stunningly emotional.









Herbie was often lampooned as someone who recycled canon warhorses. This 1974 Second Vienna school compilation belies this notion. I particularly like the Verklarte Nacht rendition here.









Karajan's Mahler does not have seem to have many fans as a whole, but few can argue with this 1982 live 9th. An amazing achievement for an old conductor beset by health problems.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Speaking of incredible marathons for an octogenarian, Karajan's last recording, of Bruckner's 7th, just throbs with romantic feeling, not to mention an elegiac sense of foreboding and bittersweet loss.









This is likely my most controversial pick, but I think Karajan's 1977 Beethoven cycle stands out for its dynamism, and also its consistency from symphony to symphony. Most complete cycles have a dud or two. This one (I would argue) does not. It may not have the single best rendition of each one, but as a group it's hard to top.









Karajan's 1961 rendition of the Planets with the VPO has an elemental energy which is terrifying in Mars, and a sweeping romanticism in Jupiter that is ravishing. Saturn is misty and mysterious, as well. Overall a wonderful set of these compositions that can easily stand as one's reference recording.

*And now for the worst:
*








Possibly HvK's most notorious recording, Stravinsky famously hated this 1964 rendition, labeling one part of it "tempo de hoochie-coochie." This is one that people point to when they claim that Karajan does not tailor his sound to the composition.









Karajan's 1964 Brandenburg Concertos are a bit of a train wreck. Although I do not subscribe to the cliche knocks on his work as "slick," "shallow," "obsessed with surfaces" and "overproduced," well.... yeah, this is all of those. Yeesh. I replaced it with Pinnock and it was like hearing them for the first time.

Karajan re-recorded these in the late 70s, and the results were not much of an improvement.


----------



## Becca

My view is that some of the best of HvK can be found in the Philharmonia/EMI recordings produced with Walter Legge from the 1950's and shortly after that. At the other end of the spectrum is some of his DGG/BPO Bruckner which, for me at least, made me dislike some of the symphonies until I finally got around to listening to other version.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Becca said:


> My view is that some of the best of HvK can be found in the Philharmonia/EMI recordings produced with Walter Legge from the 1950's and shortly after that. At the other end of the spectrum is some of his DGG/BPO Bruckner which, for me at least, made me dislike some of the symphonies until I finally got around to listening to other version.


I'm a bit of a snob for modern sound, so the Philharmonia recordings don't do it for me. In my book, Karajan's best period was mid 60s to late 70s, the height of the analog tape era. And yeah, I know a bunch of my picks are from the 80s digital period, but while he had more misses than hits then, these particular hits were home runs.

I'm surprised to hear that reaction to his Bruckner. I was under the impression that it was nearly universally admired (I certainly do).


----------



## geralmar

The Vivaldi was not well-received:


----------



## Merl

Like any conductor there are recordings of his i love and others that dont float my boat at all. Here's two i love. For me, this Beethoven cycle is still the benchmark i judge others against and that Mahler 9 is something else.

















And two that are far from terrible but a bit soggy and overblown

















I much prefer Karajan's VPO Planets and i have so many other great Schumann cycles that this one has slipped so far down the list its not on the radar any more.


----------



## TxllxT

Best:








Herbert von Karajan in Sibelius' fifth manages to evoke myth in its most elemental _Gestalt_. Powerful and truthful.






Worst:









Herbert von Karajan in Sibelius' first is heavy-handed like a dance of mammoths. A disaster.


----------



## Rogerx

Milestones in recording history .


----------



## Becca

Thank you for mentioning Boheme ... I have never understood the fascination for it given the plodding tempi.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

geralmar said:


> The Vivaldi was not well-received:


I quite like the one with Anne-Sophie Mutter, FWIW.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

TxllxT said:


> Best:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herbert von Karajan in Sibelius' fifth manages to evoke myth in its most elemental _Gestalt_. Powerful and truthful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herbert von Karajan in Sibelius' first is heavy-handed like a dance of mammoths. A disaster.


I adore the 7th on that record, too. His EMI Sibelius recordings are... an acquired taste. Not for everyone


----------



## Mandryka

Here's the worst recording by him


----------



## Mandryka

And here's the best


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Best Herbie IMO are his ‘64 Brahms 1st, ‘82 Mahler 9th, and ‘47 Brahms Requiem.

His most overrated recordings are the Beethoven 9th, specifically for the critical choral finales which lack sufficient drama and choral body from the Vienna Singverein.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Best Herbie IMO are his '64 Brahms 1st, '82 Mahler 9th, and '47 Brahms Requiem.
> 
> His most overrated recordings are the Beethoven 9th, specifically for the critical choral finales which lack sufficient drama and choral body from the Vienna Singverein.


Yep, per Brahmsianhorn, I think Karajan's 60s Brahms cycle deserves a spot on the best of list. The 1st and 4th are world-beaters.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 121330
> 
> 
> Karajan's 1964 Brandenburg Concertos are a bit of a train wreck. Although I do not subscribe to the cliche knocks on his work as "slick," "shallow," "obsessed with surfaces" and "overproduced," well.... yeah, this is all of those. Yeesh. I replaced it with Pinnock and it was like hearing them for the first time.
> 
> Karajan re-recorded these in the late 70s, and the results were not much of an improvement.


Interesting that when it was played 'blind' before a team of 'experts' on radio they picked this recording of the Brandenburgs as the best, much to their discomfort when they found out the conductor. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> Thank you for mentioning Boheme ... I have never understood the fascination for it given the plodding tempi.


Apart from if you like incredibly beautiful singing and stunning playing which I happen to. It is completely mesmeric.


----------



## DavidA

Karajan of course made a rod for his own back with the excellence of so many of his recordings which made the critics (who dislike success) furious with him. So it tended to become fashionable to decry Karajan's later recordings. Certainly some of them are not up to the standard of his earlier ones. His 1982 Beethoven symphonies were a bit of a waste of time (apart from a stupendous no 3) as neither the recording not the performances quite matched what had gone before. His late Falstaff was not up to his earlier one with Gobbi simply because the latter is one of the greatest opera recordings of all time and unmatched by anyone before or since. Nor was his late Tosca up to the great one he made with Price and Taddei.
Certainly Karajan recorded repertoire which his heart wasn't in (like Rimsky's Schez) to please the accountants at DG. It's not bad but not particularly good. His Tchaikovsky 1st piano concertos never worked out too well either which is surprising as he was a great conductor of that composer. If only he's have recorded as little as Carlos Kleiber he would have been the living legend Kleiber is today as most of his work would not be available. As it is we have the great with the not so great with the run-of-the-mill in the plethora of recordings he made. But think what pleasure people have had listening. And how that has annoyed the critics, who are still gnashing their teeth that Karajan still sells! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

If one recording this is perhaps the greatest of all. But the most excellent among excellencies!


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> *And now for the worst:
> 
> Possibly HvK's most notorious recording, Stravinsky famously hated this 1964 rendition, labeling one part of it "tempo de hoochie-coochie." This is one that people point to when they claim that Karajan does not tailor his sound to the composition.
> 
> Karajan's 1964 Brandenburg Concertos are a bit of a train wreck. Although I do not subscribe to the cliche knocks on his work as "slick," "shallow," "obsessed with surfaces" and "overproduced," well.... yeah, this is all of those. Yeesh. I replaced it with Pinnock and it was like hearing them for the first time.
> 
> Karajan re-recorded these in the late 70s, and the results were not much of an improvement.*


*

I like both of those recordings. In the Brandenburg concerti I discount the recordings that prominently feature brass because modern brass just doesn't have the right sound. But the lush string sound is a guilty pleasure for a person who usually prefers HIP recordings.

In both cases, I find the re-makes to be of less interest.*


----------



## Manxfeeder

Thanks for starting this. Back before I began relistening to classical, the local NPR affiliate ran a program dedicated to all the worst recordings by HvK. I guess he really hated his conducting. That was my introduction to the conductor, so I developed a prejudice before I even heard anything by him.

Now that I have so many good recordings by him, I've wondered what that old program played that the host considered so awful. I know it was a few Baroque compositions which he appeared to be dialing in and a violin concerto.

In my collection, of all my Karajan recordings, I think this recording of the Seasons is the worst. I can't even get a used CD store to take it. Someone described the opening as being so slow, it's less about creation and more about evolution.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Baron Scarpia said:


> I like both of those recordings. In the Brandenburg concerti I discount the recordings that prominently feature brass because modern brass just doesn't have the right sound. But the lush string sound is a guilty pleasure for a person who usually prefers HIP recordings.
> 
> In both cases, I find the re-makes to be of less interest.


I don't think they're unlistenable or anything, but the "lushness" obscures so much detail, without adding any particular beauty (I like the lushness in a romantic composition, like his Schubert or Wagner).


----------



## Kiki

The moment I read "worst" in this question, the Brandenberg concertos and the Handel Concerti Grossi came into mind. However, while they are lush, smooth and elegant, they are really not that bad, and in conception I suppose that's what big band Baroque should sound like. 

In fact I can hardly think of any recording that deserves the "worst" label. 

Honestly I don't really warm to his Beethoven or Bruckner. I think they are a bit clumsy, like an elephant trying to navigate across a river full of loose rocks, but on the other hand he has also consistently shown us a monumental vision, therefore it won't be fair to call these bad at all.

Indeed I think, in artistic terms, he has maintained a very high standard throughout his career. Even more phenomenal is that this high standard was maintained over a vast number of recordings.

In commercial terms, he's probably the most successful entrepreneur conductor, and I totally agree with what someone has already said about some critics hating success and therefore bashing him all the time.

I truly admire his Mahler 9, the glorious sound in the studio version and the intensity in the live version. So is his Parsifal (out of this world!), his Metamorphosen (exhausting, in the good sense), his Johann Strauss II (pure elegance), his Turandot (look, this is probably universally hated, but I think it has a vision.) etc. etc.


----------



## Rogerx

Let's not forget this one, one of his best, ever since Boskovsky it was a mega hit.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Rogerx said:


> Let's not forget this one, one of his best, ever since Boskovsky it was a mega hit.


This was very close to making my list, but I wanted to keep it to two posts of 5 images apiece. It is exceptional.


----------



## Rogerx

MatthewWeflen said:


> This was very close to making my list, but I wanted to keep itt o two posts of 5 images apiece. It is exceptional.


That's the right phrase for it, thanks .


----------



## DavidA

Manxfeeder said:


> In my collection, of all my Karajan recordings, I think this recording of the Seasons is the worst. I can't even get a used CD store to take it. Someone described the opening as being so slow, it's less about creation and more about evolution.
> 
> View attachment 121363


Just to point out this is the Creation not the Seasons. I haven't heard this but would point out that Karajan's earlier version with Wunderlich, Janowitz, et al, is certainly the best in German unless you require period instruments. It is quite stupendous


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> Let's not forget this one, one of his best, ever since Boskovsky it was a mega hit.


I remember the occasion being broadcast. So long ago! How the years pass!


----------



## DavidA

Kiki said:


> The moment I read "worst" in this question, the Brandenberg concertos and the Handel Concerti Grossi came into mind. However, while they are lush, smooth and elegant, they are really not that bad, and in conception I suppose that's what big band Baroque should sound like.
> 
> In fact I can hardly think of any recording that deserves the "worst" label.
> 
> Honestly I don't really warm to his *Beethoven or Bruckner. I think they are a bit clumsy,* like an elephant trying to navigate across a river full of loose rocks, but on the other hand he has also consistently shown us a monumental vision, therefore it won't be fair to call these bad at all.
> 
> Indeed I think, in artistic terms, he has maintained a very high standard throughout his career. Even more phenomenal is that this high standard was maintained over a vast number of recordings.
> 
> In commercial terms, he's probably the most successful entrepreneur conductor, and I totally agree with what someone has already said about some critics hating success and therefore bashing him all the time.
> 
> I truly admire his Mahler 9, the glorious sound in the studio version and the intensity in the live version. So is his Parsifal (out of this world!), his Metamorphosen (exhausting, in the good sense), his Johann Strauss II (pure elegance), his Turandot (look, this is probably universally hated, but I think it has a vision.) etc. etc.


I must confess 'clumsy' is the last word I would apply to the 1963 set of Beethoven.


----------



## Rogerx

DavidA said:


> I remember the occasion being broadcast. So long ago! How the years pass!







And made Kathleen Battle a kind of superstar.


----------



## Enthusiast

There are some Karajan recordings that are obviously among the best ever recorded for their works - and many of them have been mentioned above (I'll certainly go with his Sibelius, his Falstaff and the best of his Beethoven and Brahms) - and there are quite a few that are simply awful (they include his Mahler 5 and 6, the Bach and Handel mentioned, his Mozart symphonies). The thing is that _most _of his recordings (and did anyone record more than he did) are at the very least an interesting and somewhat unique accounts of the works in question. There are so many works where the Karajan account is almost a necessary additional recording to go with your faourite(s).


----------



## Rogerx

Wagner: Parsifal, recorded only a few years before he died.



> In most respects this is the most perfect, atmospheric Parsifal yet committed to disc or cassette. Admitting the vocal imperfections, few as they are, the set attempts an artistic, or at least technical superiority which it fairly achieves.


From Gramophone


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> There are some Karajan recordings that are obviously among the best ever recorded for their works - and many of them have been mentioned above (I'll certainly go with his Sibelius, his Falstaff and the best of his Beethoven and Brahms) - and there are quite a few that are simply awful (they *include his Mahler 5 and 6, *the Bach and Handel mentioned, his Mozart symphonies). The thing is that _most _of his recordings (and did anyone record more than he did) are at the very least an interesting and somewhat unique accounts of the works in question. There are so many works where the Karajan account is almost a necessary additional recording to go with your faourite(s).


I can understand some of your comments regarding the Bach Handel and Mozart if you are an HIP man especially but not regarding the Mahler which strike me as exemplary performances of the works in question. Interestingly when Karajan recorded the Bach Mass in the 1950s it was looked upon in its day almost as an HIP performance in style, so different from the lumbering performances which were then current. Unfortunately he himself was disappointed with the remake for DG although even that was once the recemmended version for the BBC Building a Library.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I'm not really a HIP man. I like a lot of HIP performances and welcome much of what the "movement" did for Baroque and Classical music. But I also like the Brandenburgs from Britten's and (Adolf) Busch, for example, and enjoy Klemperer's Bach as well. Karajan is too smooth for me in that repertoire.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I'm not really a HIP man. I like a lot of HIP performances and welcome much of what the "movement" did for Baroque and Classical music. But I also like the Brandenburgs from Britten's and (Adolf) Busch, for example, and enjoy *Klemperer's Bach* as well. Karajan is too smooth for me in that repertoire.


I listened to the beginning of Klemperer's St Matthew and thought the end of the world might come before it finished. Awful!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Karajan produced reliable interpretations in the best sound quality surrounded by the best musicians. He rarely misfired in his musical choices, hence the reliability. But he was rarely ever revelatory as with the greatest interpreters. If Karajan’s lifespan had been pre-1955, would he be remembered today like Furtwangler, Toscanini, or Stokowski, men who truly performed miracles on the podium that transcend sonic limitations? I think he would be largely forgotten. Without the benefit of stereo sound, his interpretations would have been dismissed as largely bland and generic.

I only listen to Karajan to hear pieces I like in good sound and reliable execution. I don’t listen to Karajan for the best performances of my favorite works, unless it’s 20th century music where he carved a special niche for himself.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I would also mention his Bruckner 8, which sounds great, and his Prokofiev 5. Yes, his R. Strauss is great. I felt he was also quite good with Tchaikovsky's symphonies.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Phil loves classical said:


> I would also mention his Bruckner 8, which sounds great, and his Prokofiev 5. Yes, his R. Strauss is great. I felt he was also quite good with Tchaikovsky's symphonies.


I love both his Bruckner and his Tchaikovsky, regardless of version. All of them are top notch.


----------



## MarkW

I hardly have an encyclopedic knowledge of his recordings, but some I return to enough to say I have a soft spot for are: His 1960's Brahms symphonies (esp. the Third), the late Mozart symphonies he did for EMI (for some reason) in the early '70's, and his Boris Godunov, which is kind of a guilty pleasure because he used Rimsky's Technicolor orchestration, and rather more music than Mussorgsky would have wanted in any single production.


----------



## DavidA

MarkW said:


> I hardly have an encyclopedic knowledge of his recordings, but some I return to enough to say I have a soft spot for are: His 1960's Brahms symphonies (esp. the Third), *the late Mozart symphonies he did for EMI (for some reason) in the early '70's*, and his Boris Godunov, which is kind of a guilty pleasure because he used Rimsky's Technicolor orchestration, and rather more music than Mussorgsky would have wanted in any single production.


Interesting that the EMI Mozart set seem to be rather more idiomatic than the DG set of around the same time. Agree about Boris.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Interesting that the EMI Mozart set seem to be rather more idiomatic than the DG set of around the same time. Agree about Boris.


I find the main advantage of the EMI is much better sound. Better string/wind balance.


----------



## Manxfeeder

DavidA said:


> Just to point out this is the Creation not the Seasons.


Oops. You're right.


----------



## Manxfeeder

DavidA said:


> I haven't heard this but would point out that Karajan's earlier version with Wunderlich, Janowitz, et al, is certainly the best in German unless you require period instruments. It is quite stupendous
> 
> View attachment 121379


That's the one I was looking for when I bought the other one. Nobody told me back in the day that he made two recordings of the Creation.


----------



## DavidA

Manxfeeder said:


> That's the one I was looking for when I bought the other one. Nobody told me back in the day that he made two recordings of the Creation.


There are actually three versions. This one is live in mono but with the whole of Wunderlich's performance. The studio version coincided with his untimely death and Krenn had to fill in some recits


----------



## CnC Bartok

Here's a truly awful recording. At least Dorati and Ormandy sound like they're having fun with it (Wellington's Victory, not Egmont, that's pretty decent):









The Concerto for Orchestra here is a bit too smooth for my tastes. The later EMI one was better!









The Music for Strings ain't bad, though, also available here: his Rite may have been awful, but his Apollo is lovely and loving.


----------



## DavidA

CnC Bartok said:


> Here's a truly awful recording. At least Dorati and Ormandy sound like they're having fun with it (Wellington's Victory, not Egmont, that's pretty decent):
> 
> View attachment 121393
> 
> 
> The Concerto for Orchestra here is a bit too smooth for my tastes. The later EMI one was better!
> 
> View attachment 121394
> 
> 
> *The Music for Strings ain't bad*, though, also available here: his Rite may have been awful, but his Apollo is lovely and loving.
> 
> View attachment 121395


Music for strings also available on an earlier EMI


----------



## Guest

So entertaining to see my favorite Karajan recordings cites as "worst." Everything is "too smooth." Going better than expected for a thread like this, I guess.


----------



## CnC Bartok

DavidA said:


> Music for strings also available on an earlier EMI


Indeed! The 1949 recording. And a later, 1974 one too!


----------



## flamencosketches

I don't know about best, but other than the obvious (his 1963 Beethoven cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic), some recordings I really like include:

- Sibelius Tapiola, Finlandia, Swan of Tuonela
- Mahler Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig
- Dvorak 9th with Vienna Philharmonic
- Webern Passacaglia, 5 Pieces, 6 Pieces, Symphony (the CD that got me into Webern )
- Brahms 3rd (not a piece that I really like, but he does a good job with it I think)
- Mendelssohn Violin Concerto with Anne-Sophie Mutter

I just listened to some of his Bruckner 8th with the Vienna Philharmonic on the drive home from work. Damn good! And I don't even like Bruckner. Guess who's going to look into more of Karajan's Bruckner. He is not my favorite conductor, but sometimes, he is really good at illustrating what certain pieces are all about, melodically, thematically, etc. He makes the music really easy to follow along with. I think he is underrated in today's highly anti-Karajan classical climate.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

flamencosketches said:


> I don't know about best, but other than the obvious (his 1963 Beethoven cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic), some recordings I really like include:
> 
> - Sibelius Tapiola, Finlandia, Swan of Tuonela
> - Mahler Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig
> - Dvorak 9th with Vienna Philharmonic
> - Webern Passacaglia, 5 Pieces, 6 Pieces, Symphony (the CD that got me into Webern )
> - Brahms 3rd (not a piece that I really like, but he does a good job with it I think)
> - Mendelssohn Violin Concerto with Anne-Sophie Mutter
> 
> I just listened to some of his Bruckner 8th with the Vienna Philharmonic on the drive home from work. Damn good! And I don't even like Bruckner. Guess who's going to look into more of Karajan's Bruckner. He is not my favorite conductor, but sometimes, he is really good at illustrating what certain pieces are all about, melodically, thematically, etc. He makes the music really easy to follow along with. I think he is underrated in today's highly anti-Karajan classical climate.


The Dvorak and Mendelssohn recordings are indeed stellar. I had to winnow things down, but those two are in heavy rotation for me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I happen to be a big fan of his Rite of Spring, not the 60s one that Stravinsky hated but the 70s remake, which he probably would have hated even more. A different take on the piece which I thought adds depth.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I happen to be a big fan of his Rite of Spring, not the 60s one that Stravinsky hated but the 70s remake, which he probably would have hated even more. A different take on the piece which I thought adds depth.


Just the opposite of my experience. 

Take the "best" and "worst" and reverse it and it will turn out to be someone else's "best" and "worst."


----------



## MatthewWeflen

https://www.classicstoday.com/revie...-blu-ray-audio-a-controversial-set-revisited/

This review is in agreement with my assessment of his 70s Beethoven cycle, and also does a good job describing the knee jerk anti - Karajan sentiment that followed his death (which the author shared).


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.classicstoday.com/revie...-blu-ray-audio-a-controversial-set-revisited/
> 
> This review is in agreement with my assessment of his 70s Beethoven cycle, and also does a good job describing *the knee jerk anti - Karajan sentiment that followed his death* (which the author shared).


It was quite hilarious how weak-minded critics suddenly felt they could say what they liked and unleashed peals of vitriol at Karajan, blaming him from everything from the demise of the recording industry to the start of the second world war. I can remember one particular idiot going on about Solti taking over Verdi's Ballo from Karajan at Saltzburg and saying "It was the hardest thing in my career," and interpreting that to mean that it was because he was taking over from such a bad conductor. Actually if you read Solti's memoirs he considered Karajan a conductor of genius (although never close to him) and the actually reason he was reluctant to take over Ballo was because he hadn't conducted it for so many years. But it could have been called the 'critics revenge' on someone who was far too successful for their liking.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I happen to be a big fan of his Rite of Spring, not the 60s one that Stravinsky hated but the 70s remake, which he probably would have hated even more. A different take on the piece which I thought adds depth.


It's not like you to prefer a newer recording :angel: !!

I will confess I know Karajan's Rite only by reputation, obviously from the composer's generous assessment. Not doubt the two as musicians were the antithesis of each other. But the only reason we know "right from wrong" with Stravinsky is the huge self-recorded legacy he left. Do we have Beethoven's word on the rights and wrongs of his music?

So why not "lush up" Stravinsky? Karajan's Apollo is a very fine recording. And not long ago I heard a gorgeous Symphony of Psalms on the radio. It was Karajan!

I will confess to having no issues with HvK. I don't like the recordings I posted. But I do like dozens of others, including his Mahler, his Bruckner, his Beethoven (I prefer his 1970s cycle) and - shock/horror! His Second Viennese School.

Just there are very few out and out favourites from him....


----------



## NLAdriaan

My usual suspects memorable HvK issues are his 80's recordings (Mahler 9 live, Bruckner 7 & 8 with VPO), which sound as if the bottles of HvK sauce were finally empty and he decided to just make intense music. I also love the Meistersinger on EMI with Schwarzkopf. Then I have the 2nd Viennese school set, because HvK makes them sound as a logical successor to the late romantic period. And his 60's B&B (Brahms 2-3 and Beethoven cycle). I have a happy childhood memory of Tchaikovsky's 1st concerto with Richter. And Bartok's Music for strings, percussion and celesta, as it was in the soundtrack of the Shining (snowy maze scene) and attracted my attention for it's 'magnetic' playing, the versions I knew would not have had the same effect. 

I am not enough aware of his other EMI opera recordings.

It would have saved the planet a lot of vinyl and plastic if HvK would have had the same self critical attitude as Carlos Kleiber. The efficiency of HvK's output is quite low, only a few of his recordings are essential.


----------



## Larkenfield

Sublime performance of a sublime symphony.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but Karajan's greatest recording, studio or live, is this one IMO:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> I don't know about best, but other than the obvious (his 1963 Beethoven cycle with the Berlin Philharmonic), some recordings I really like include:
> 
> - Sibelius Tapiola, Finlandia, Swan of Tuonela
> - Mahler Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig
> - Dvorak 9th with Vienna Philharmonic
> - Webern Passacaglia, 5 Pieces, 6 Pieces, Symphony (the CD that got me into Webern )
> - Brahms 3rd (not a piece that I really like, but he does a good job with it I think)
> - Mendelssohn Violin Concerto with Anne-Sophie Mutter
> 
> I just listened to some of his Bruckner 8th with the Vienna Philharmonic on the drive home from work. Damn good! And I don't even like Bruckner. Guess who's going to look into more of Karajan's Bruckner. He is not my favorite conductor, but sometimes, he is really good at illustrating what certain pieces are all about, melodically, thematically, etc. He makes the music really easy to follow along with. I think he is underrated in today's highly anti-Karajan classical climate.


I just did a search in my files, lists I have been revising for decades, and these are the Karajan versions of works I have classified as the most definitive:

Balakirev, Symphony No. 1
Berg, Lyric suite, 3 pieces for orchestra
Chopin, Les Sylphides
Donizetti, Lucia di Lammermoor (w/Callas)
Grieg, Holberg suite
Honegger, Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3
Humperdinck, Hansel und Gretel
Mozart, Horn concertos (w/Brain)
Roussel, Symphony No. 4
Sibelius, Finlandia, En saga, Valse triste
Tchaikovsky, Romeo and Juliet
Webern, Passacaglia for orchestra

So essentially he was at his best in modern repertoire and the two Scandinavians, Grieg and Sibelius.


----------



## flamencosketches

^I agree that HvK's Webern Passacaglia is the greatest ever. His Webern op.6 pieces is something else too, but I prefer Boulez/LSO by a hair.






This Bruckner 7th with the Vienna PO, Karajan's final recording, is just beautiful. I'm not much of a Bruckner guy but Karajan somehow keeps my interest here, at least through the first movement. Am I crazy/naive or i'd this a really good performance...? Does someone want to show me another recording of this symphony which tops this one, just so I can compare fairly?


----------



## NLAdriaan

flamencosketches said:


> ^I agree that HvK's Webern Passacaglia is the greatest ever. His Webern op.6 pieces is something else too, but I prefer Boulez/LSO by a hair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Bruckner 7th with the Vienna PO, Karajan's final recording, is just beautiful. I'm not much of a Bruckner guy but Karajan somehow keeps my interest here, at least through the first movement. Am I crazy/naive or i'd this a really good performance...? Does someone want to show me another recording of this symphony which tops this one, just so I can compare fairly?


From the second Viennese school, I also prefer more than one interpretation. Next to Karajan, Boulez (especially the first recordings for Sony) and Abbado are good alternatives.

For a yardstick Bruckner 7, I would certainly listen to Gunter Wand with the Berliner PO for RCA:








Interesting fact is that Wand was not invited by Karajan to conduct the BPO with Bruckner, during HvK's Berlin years. Abbado invited Wand back and he made the most beautiful Bruckner recordings, including the 7th. I would absolutely recommend these specific recordings by Wand, next to HvK's late 7th and 8th Bruckner, which BTW were recorded with the VPO. Wand is more fluent and lively and of course the BPO is the better orchestra compared to the NDR recordings he made in Hamburg. Wand tops HvK in Bruckner.


----------



## flamencosketches

OK. Good call. I’ve heard and enjoyed the Wand/NDR Bruckner 4th, but have not heard any of his Berlin recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'd say Karajan's earlier recording on EMI is a better, more cohesive effort. In fact it is my first choice overall for this symphony in modern sound.






But in Bruckner interpretation, Furtwangler is king. Bruckner 9 was his very first concert performance at the age of 20. And his own compositions sound most closely aligned with Bruckner. His May 1, 1951, Rome recording has more life than his other two IMO, though all three are great. Both the Tahra and Music & Arts issues sound better than this fuzzy YouTube incarnation, but it was the only one I could find.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> From the second Viennese school, I also prefer more than one interpretation. Next to Karajan, Boulez (especially the first recordings for Sony) and Abbado are good alternatives.
> 
> For a yardstick Bruckner 7, I would certainly listen to Gunter Wand with the Berliner PO for RCA:
> View attachment 121409
> 
> 
> *Interesting fact is that Wand was not invited by Karajan to conduct the BPO with Bruckner, during HvK's Berlin years. *Abbado invited Wand back and he made the most beautiful Bruckner recordings, including the 7th. I would absolutely recommend these specific recordings by Wand, next to HvK's late 7th and 8th Bruckner, which BTW were recorded with the VPO. Wand is more fluent and lively and of course the BPO is the better orchestra compared to the NDR recordings he made in Hamburg. Wand tops HvK in Bruckner.


I don't think Wand was rated too much internationally as a conductor during Karajan's life. Only after HvK's death was he recognised. So not surprising that he wasn't invited, especially to conduct Karajan's repertoire.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I don't think Wand was rated too much internationally as a conductor during Karajan's life. Only after HvK's death was he recognised. So not surprising that he wasn't invited, especially to conduct Karajan's repertoire.


I think the issue may have been that Karajan was a bit of a control freak and didn't want the orchestra to be conducted by people he thought would give them "bad habits" or change their sound. I wonder though, how much control Karajan had. I thought that to some extent the Berlin Philharmonic was a self-regulated entity. Karajan got into a bitter dispute when they refused to confirm is choice of Sabine Meyer as principal clarinet.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think the issue may have been that Karajan was a bit of a control freak and didn't want the orchestra to be conducted by people he thought would give them "bad habits" or change their sound. I wonder though, how much control Karajan had. I thought that to some extent the Berlin Philharmonic was a self-regulated entity. Karajan got into a bitter dispute when they refused to confirm is choice of Sabine Meyer as principal clarinet.


I think the real issue was that Wand wasn't really recognised too much during Karajan's reign in Berlin. Karajan was the ultimate control freak in many ways yet his players always talked about the amount of freedom he gave them in performance.


----------



## DavidA

Just in case you're missing something.............

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Herbert-vo...ords=karajan&qid=1563300987&s=gateway&sr=8-14


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think the real issue was that Wand wasn't really recognised too much during Karajan's reign in Berlin. Karajan was the ultimate control freak in many ways yet his players always talked about the amount of freedom he gave them in performance.


He gave them freedom because he knew they were already brainwashed.


----------



## Itullian

For best I would say his 60's Brahms cycle. 
His Ring des Nibelungen, Parsifal and Meistersinger.
His EMI Tristan would have been great if he stayed out of the engineering room, A real shame.

Worst would be his 60's "Pastoral". I can't stand it.


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> For best I would say his 60's Brahms cycle.
> His Ring des Nibelungen, Parsifal and Meistersinger.
> His EMI Tristan would have been great if he stayed out of the engineering room, A real shame.
> 
> *Worst would be his 60's "Pastoral". I can't stand it.*


Bit hard driven in first movement. Try the 1950s and the 1970s versions. Superb!


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> He gave them freedom because he knew they were already brainwashed.


Funny that's not what the musicians who worked with him said. They were obviously not brainwashed over the Sabine Meyer affair. It's funny how these myths arose about Karajan which were actually opposite to the testimony of those who played under him.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Funny that's not what the musicians who worked with him said. They were obviously not brainwashed over the Sabine Meyer affair. It's funny how these myths arose about Karajan which were actually opposite to the testimony of those who played under him.


Are you familiar with the concept of a "joke?"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Funny that's not what the musicians who worked with him said. They were obviously not brainwashed over the Sabine Meyer affair. It's funny how these myths arose about Karajan which were actually opposite to the testimony of those who played under him.


*Werner Tharichen, Berlin Philharmonic percussionist*

On Furtwangler: "A person who carries the sound so strongly within himself that he brings the sound out in others is the most beautiful thing an orchestra can experience. _When you know this person is totally open and you are invited to join him, that's when you make this kind of music._"

On Karajan: "He viewed himself as the center of it all. He had to get involved for himself and for his career. Karajan was the first to be completely different. He wasn't a creator, but a fantastic salesman. He sold the music, he sold himself, and he sold us too. And that's appropriate these days, isn't it? We knew this, and that's why we wanted him. In the old days we got to know many incredibly beautiful things. Karajan, too, wanted this orchestra because it carried Furtwangler's sound. It wasn't easy for us at first. Furtwangler used to look at us fervently, used to work together with us. _But now suddenly we weren't even so much as looked at._ His eyes were closed, and he'd stand there in front of us. With this powerful music, if the conductor pays no attention to you, that was a very difficult thing for us at the beginning. Later we got used to each other.


----------



## 13hm13

Some thoughts about the label that most supported Herr Karajan: DG.
Performances, artists and repertoire aside, I'm not a fan of DG sound quality (roughly mid 1960s - present) . There are some exceptions (e.g., Guilini / Los Angeles; various piano sonatas ... can sound quite good). But I don't think DG does large-scale orchestral recordings "right". And I often find their digital recordings "hard" and "honky". 
HvK's Bruckner 7 (EMI vs. DG) are good examples to compare/contrast.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> Bit hard driven in first movement. Try the 1950s and the 1970s versions. Superb!


The 70's Pastoral is my go-to stress reducer when I need to return to a happy place 

My impression in reading these responses is that there are a wealth of riches in the Karajan discography and a relative paucity of duds. He seems to have excelled in a good number of catalog areas, and been merely mediocre in a few others. His Haydn, for example, doesn't do anything for me. But it's not horrendously awful or anything.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> Are you familiar with the concept of a "joke?"


I am but I fear if yours was it was well hidden. Sorry! :lol:


----------



## Rogerx

This set is great, has raving reviews. 
( Not that I care, I like to or not)


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Yep, Hvk/BPO does a nice rendition of Liszt.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> Yep, Hvk/BPO does a nice rendition of Liszt.


There is a brilliant rendering of the Hungarian Fantasy with Cherkassky


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

A couple more of my favorite Karajans. Completely forgot to list the lovely 1950 Zauberflote, my favorite recording after Beecham. Also his EMI collection of overtures and preludes makes an excellent introduction to Wagner's music.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> Yep, Hvk/BPO does a nice rendition of Liszt.


Listening to Karajan's recording of Les Preludes with the Philharmonia on EMI and just a few years later with the BPO on DG is a revelation. Completely different approach.


----------



## Merl

I still love his Sibelius. Been playing these today.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> I still love his Sibelius. Been playing these today.
> 
> View attachment 121475
> 
> View attachment 121476


I am also reappraising his EMI Sibelius. I think it's quite good. I still like the DG Sibelius recordings better, as they are clearer in textures and more mysterious. The EMI is loud, in your face, aggressive Sibelius - but it is thrilling.

I wish he had recorded 7 for EMI. I would be very interested to hear it in that more booming style. But the DG 7th is wondrous.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am also reappraising his EMI Sibelius. I think it's quite good. I still like the DG Sibelius recordings better, as they are clearer in textures and more mysterious. The EMI is loud, in your face, aggressive Sibelius - but it is thrilling.
> 
> I wish he had recorded 7 for EMI. I would be very interested to hear it in that more booming style. But the DG 7th is wondrous.


It is amazing those tiny eared critics who always bayed on that he conducted everything the same! :lol:


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> It is amazing those tiny eared critics who always bayed on that he conducted everything the same! :lol:


'Slick, homogenous and controlled'. If its written enough people will think its true, even if it isnt.


----------



## Larkenfield

Without citing a specific example, if a composer writes something that’s honest and raw, it should stay that way in post production and not be glossed over because the conductor may believe in a beautiful surface veneer in his recordings. Most listeners value honesty in a performance and they don’t like intrusive post production effects and manipulation to “improve” it, and Herbert von Karajan was known for doing this and some people didn’t like it and I think they have a right not to like it. It can give a false impression of the music and the orchestra, and those who like him as a conductor should be able to notice this when it happens. When they don’t and when the critics find it obviously there, it calls into question their own discernment and ability to hear. It means keeping the composer’s intentions in mind and then what it sounds like post production, and sometimes his recordings do have a manipulative, seemingly imposed, slick, controlled sound with him trying to be central to everything. There’s something false about it and I don’t think listeners want falsity. They want something that’s genuine, honest and real without the noticeable commercial “improvements”. But did he always do this? No. And I would think the Herbert von Karajan detractors would be able to notice this, but they usually don’t.


----------



## Itullian

I have to add one of his best:
Fidelio EMI


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Larkenfield said:


> Without citing a specific example, if a composer writes something that's honest and raw, it should stay that way in post production and not be glossed over because the conductor may believe in a beautiful surface veneer in his recordings. Most listeners value honesty in a performance and they don't like intrusive post production effects and manipulation to "improve" it, and Herbert von Karajan was known for doing this and some people didn't like it and I think they have a right not to like it. It can give a false impression of the music and the orchestra, and those who like him as a conductor should be able to notice this when it happens. When they don't and when the critics find it obviously there, it calls into question their own discernment and ability to hear. It means keeping the composer's intentions in mind and then what it sounds like post production, and sometimes his recordings do have a manipulative, seemingly imposed, slick, controlled sound with him trying to be central to everything. There's something false about it and I don't think listeners want falsity. They want something that's genuine, honest and real without the noticeable commercial "improvements". But did he always do this? No. And I would think the Herbert von Karajan detractors would be able to notice this, but they usually don't.


The question of what listeners want is tricky. How are we to measure this? If it's by comments here, then the verdict is split. If it's by album sales, then it seems as though listeners most definitely want what Karajan brings to the table.

As far as "not noticing" goes, we were literally just discussing the differences between different recordings. It is clear that Karajan developed a taste for greater post-production alteration later in his career. Some times it worked to positive effect, some times it didn't.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Without citing a specific example, if a composer writes something that's honest and raw, it should stay that way in post production and not be glossed over because the conductor may believe in a beautiful surface veneer in his recordings. Most listeners value honesty in a performance and they don't like intrusive post production effects and manipulation to "improve" it, and Herbert von Karajan was known for doing this and some people didn't like it and I think they have a right not to like it. It can give a false impression of the music and the orchestra, and those who like him as a conductor should be able to notice this when it happens. When they don't and when the critics find it obviously there, it calls into question their own discernment and ability to hear. It means keeping the composer's intentions in mind and then what it sounds like post production, and sometimes his recordings do have a manipulative, seemingly imposed, slick, controlled sound with him trying to be central to everything. There's something false about it and I don't think listeners want falsity. They want something that's genuine, honest and real without the noticeable commercial "improvements". But did he always do this? No. And I would think the Herbert von Karajan detractors would be able to notice this, but they usually don't.


I wish I had a nickle for every time some one derided Karajan's "surface veneer." Karajan could create a beautiful sound and it wasn't a veneer, it was the entire orchestra working together to make a perfectly balanced sound. It was not something that was or could be created in post-production. No recording has ever captured the beauty of Karajan's sound as I heard it the one time I heard Karajan in concert.

What DG's tonnmeister (I assume the German translation for imbecile) did in the late era was use superfluous spot miking to overemphasize solo passages or generally distort orchestral balances. If you listen to the '63 recording of Karajans Brahms Symphony No 1 (finale) you will hear the beautiful horn theme come from the orchestra. If you listen to the '78 recording, all of a sudden you are listening to a horn concerto, with the horn apparently playing into its own microphone, in a separate sound-stage from the orchestra. It is nothing like what you would hear in the hall, unless the principal horn happened to be sitting three rows in front of you and suddenly stood up and started playing into your face. Between about 1972 and the early 80's they ruined most of Karajan's recordings with these crude intrusions. Perhaps Karajan approved, which would not be to his credit. But it was DG's house style during this era and Karajan didn't invent it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

That's what it is. Beauty and power, combined.

I was just listening to Hogwood's Beethoven 5. In addition to finding the changes in tempii weird (hurrying in some passages, slowing to a crawl in others) there was just something unsatisfying about the sound.

So I popped in Karajan's 77 5th. It's the tones, the rich sonority. In part it's modern instruments, but it's also the way the sounds merge. That, combined with his instinct for tempo, leads to a more emotionally involving experience, for me at least.

He owes a debt to the BPO (and VPO to a lesser extent), and he had made many a misstep in his long career (which was part of this thread), but he deserves credit where it's due. Many other conductors directed mediocre recordings with the same players.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Karajan’s way was very manicured. I enjoy his Debussy and Ravel. The music is very evocative in his hands. In Beethoven I don’t hear the sharp accents or sense of freedom you hear with Furtwangler, Toscanini, Klemperer, and Kleiber. It’s a little too careful and controlled in Karajan’s hands. But in 20th century repertoire his way was beautiful. Really any tone poem was more up Karajan’s alley, works that rely on color more than structure or drama. The tone poems of Liszt, Sibelius, and Richard Strauss, for example.


----------



## Rogerx

Sensation in DVD recordings.


----------



## joen_cph

Not mentioned hitherto I think, but I've always really liked his late Mozart Symphonies set on EMI, not the DG. Some of my favourite recordings of those works.


----------



## Merl

Baron Scarpia said:


> I wish I had a nickle for every time some one derided Karajan's "surface veneer." Karajan could create a beautiful sound and it wasn't a veneer, it was the entire orchestra working together to make a perfectly balanced sound. It was not something that was or could be created in post-production. No recording has ever captured the beauty of Karajan's sound as I heard it the one time I heard Karajan in concert.
> 
> What DG's tonnmeister (I assume the German translation for imbecile) did in the late era was use superfluous spot miking to overemphasize solo passages or generally distort orchestral balances. If you listen to the '63 recording of Karajans Brahms Symphony No 1 (finale) you will hear the beautiful horn theme come from the orchestra. If you listen to the '78 recording, all of a sudden you are listening to a horn concerto, with the horn apparently playing into its own microphone, in a separate sound-stage from the orchestra. It is nothing like what you would hear in the hall, unless the principal horn happened to be sitting three rows in front of you and suddenly stood up and started playing into your face. Between about 1972 and the early 80's they ruined most of Karajan's recordings with these crude intrusions. Perhaps Karajan approved, which would not be to his credit. But it was DG's house style during this era and Karajan didn't invent it.


This was the problem with Karajan's 80s digital cycle, when it first appeared, and many DG early digital discs. Balances were all over the place and playing the set on a standard stereo system it just sounded plain 'odd' and nothing like you'd hear in a concert hall. At times it made the performances seem they were 'jumping the beat' but it wasnt the case...it was just that they were really closely miked. What didnt help was that the DG engineers had artificially doubled the basses in the recording making some bass passages cloudy and cluttered. All this was sorted on the Gold remasters. I have the original discs and the remastered gold editions and they sound totally different. The Gold remasters got rid of the strange, artificial, uneven balances, glassy early digital sound, spotlit instruments and rumbly OTT bass and it sounds much much better. Tbf to the DG engineers they were experimenting with miking at that time. Yet the 80s cycle still doesnt sound better than the 77 set (the performances arent as good either except the 3rd and 8th) probably because the recording is still a bit string-heavy (that bit was Karajan's fault). However, Karajan was allegedly never fully happy with the sound of the last set (he had a lot of commitments so couldnt be as involved in the mixing as he wished) but DG and Karajan wanted a digital cycle out there and DG were throwing buckets of money at advertising it. The sales for it were huge (especialy in Japan, where HvK was idolised). However, If you want to hear a true representation of HvK live check out his Live 1977 Tokyo set. Its still HvK and remarkably consistent with his other performances but it has a very different natural live sound. It also shows he could deliver just as well live.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

My ranking of conductors we have on record:

1. Furtwängler
2. De Sabata
3. Toscanini
4. Stokowski
5. Barbirolli
6. Klemperer
7. Walter
8. Beecham
9. Mengelberg
10. Weingartner
11. Horenstein
12. Abendroth
13. C. Kleiber
14. Mravinsky
15. Talich
16. Koussevitzky
17. Fricsay
18. Karajan
19. Jochum
20. Kubelik
21. Kempe
22. Bernstein
23. Monteux
24. Krauss
25. E. Kleiber
26. Scherchen
27. Mitropoulos
28. Kondrashin
29. Ancerl
30. Böhm
31. Schuricht
32. Busch
33. Reiner
34. Munch
35. Rozhdestvensky
36. Gardiner
37. Wöldike
38. Giulini
39. Markevitch
40. Cluytens
41. Kletzki
42. Abbado
43. Dorati
44. Cantelli
45. Szell
46. Van Kempen
47. Païta
48. Solti
49. Steinberg
50. Davis
51. Kertesz
52. Boult
53. Pinnock
54. Schmidt-Isserstedt
55. Rattle
56. Haitink
57. Previn
58. Mackerras
59. Golovanov
60. Sinopoli
61. Tennstedt
62. Boulez
63. Wand
64. Harnoncourt
65. Dutoit
66. Leppard
67. Ormandy
68. Mehta
69. Norrington
70. Ansermet
71. Gergiev
72. Maazel
73. Barenboim
74. Chailly
75. Pletnev
76. Sawallisch
77. K. Sanderling
78. Thielemann
79. Celibidache
80. Hogwood
81. Tilson Thomas
82. Levine
83. Ashkenazy
84. Ozawa
85. Leinsdorf


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My ranking of conductors we have on record:
> 
> 1. Furtwängler
> 2. De Sabata
> 3. Toscanini
> 4. Stokowski
> 5. Barbirolli
> 6. Klemperer
> 7. Walter
> 8. Beecham
> 9. Mengelberg
> 10. Weingartner
> 11. Horenstein
> 12. Abendroth
> 13. C. Kleiber
> 14. Mravinsky
> 15. Talich
> 16. Koussevitzky
> 17. Fricsay
> 18. Karajan
> 19. Jochum
> 20. Kubelik
> 21. Kempe
> 22. Bernstein
> 23. Monteux
> 24. Krauss
> 25. E. Kleiber
> 26. Scherchen
> 27. Mitropoulos
> 28. Kondrashin
> 29. Ancerl
> 30. Böhm
> 31. Schuricht
> 32. Busch
> 33. Reiner
> 34. Munch
> 35. Rozhdestvensky
> 36. Gardiner
> 37. Wöldike
> 38. Giulini
> 39. Markevitch
> 40. Cluytens
> 41. Kletzki
> 42. Abbado
> 43. Dorati
> 44. Cantelli
> 45. Szell
> 46. Van Kempen
> 47. Païta
> 48. Solti
> 49. Steinberg
> 50. Davis
> 51. Kertesz
> 52. Boult
> 53. Pinnock
> 54. Schmidt-Isserstedt
> 55. Rattle
> 56. Haitink
> 57. Previn
> 58. Mackerras
> 59. Golovanov
> 60. Sinopoli
> 61. Tennstedt
> 62. Boulez
> 63. Wand
> 64. Harnoncourt
> 65. Dutoit
> 66. Leppard
> 67. Ormandy
> 68. Mehta
> 69. Norrington
> 70. Ansermet
> 71. Gergiev
> 72. Barenboim
> 73. Chailly
> 74. Pletnev
> 75. Sawallisch
> 76. K. Sanderling
> 77. Thielemann
> 78. Celibidache
> 79. Hogwood
> 80. Tilson Thomas
> 81. Levine
> 82. Ashkenazy
> 83. Leinsdorf


I couldnt even think of making a list like that. So many new recordings are being made and conductors (those still alive) can improve (eg Haitink). Plus my list would change all the time as my tastes are constantly changing.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I couldnt even think of making a list like that. So many new recordings are being made and conductors (those still alive) can improve (eg Haitink). Plus my list would change all the time as my tastes are constantly changing.


I've already added a couple since you posted (Maazel and Ozawa).

The highest ranking living conductor on my list is Gardiner at 36, followed by Pinnock at 53.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> This was the problem with Karajan's 80s digital cycle, when it first appeared, and many DG early digital discs. Balances were all over the place and playing the set on a standard stereo system it just sounded plain 'odd' and nothing like you'd hear in a concert hall. At times it made the performances seem they were 'jumping the beat' but it wasnt the case...it was just that they were really closely miked. What didnt help was that the DG engineers had artificially doubled the basses in the recording making some bass passages cloudy and cluttered. All this was sorted on the Gold remasters. I have the original discs and the remastered gold editions and they sound totally different. The Gold remasters got rid of the strange, artificial, uneven balances, glassy early digital sound, spotlit instruments and rumbly OTT bass and it sounds much much better. Tbf to the DG engineers they were experimenting with miking at that time. Yet the 80s cycle still doesnt sound better than the 77 set (the performances arent as good either except the 3rd and 8th) probably because the recording is still a bit string-heavy (that bit was Karajan's fault). However, Karajan was allegedly never fully happy with the sound of the last set (he had a lot of commitments so couldnt be as involved in the mixing as he wished) but DG and Karajan wanted a digital cycle out there and DG were throwing buckets of money at advertising it. The sales for it were huge (especialy in Japan, where HvK was idolised). However, If you want to hear a true representation of HvK live check out his Live 1977 Tokyo set. Its still HvK and remarkably consistent with his other performances but it has a very different natural live sound. It also shows he could deliver just as well live.


I have the 1980 cycle which I acquired cheap and is now going for next-to-nothing because of the engineering. However, I also picked up a Gold remaster of the 3rd (a truly great performance btw) and the remastering has done the job. It sounds superb.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> I couldnt even think of making a list like that. So many new recordings are being made and conductors (those still alive) can improve (eg Haitink). Plus my list would change all the time as my tastes are constantly changing.


I think it is pretty futile making 'ranking' lists as styles change and also conductors tended to excel at different composers. Whatever it can only be a matter of taste anyway and personal opinion. I would sooner have the opinion of musicians who actually played under conductors.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> I think it is pretty futile making 'ranking' lists as styles change and also conductors tended to excel at different composers. Whatever it can only be a matter of taste anyway and personal opinion. I would sooner have the opinion of musicians who actually played under conductors.


It would have to be musicians not only playing under a wide range of conductors but whose lives spanned generations.

My guess is that if you sampled a wide pool of classical music experts, the most common names on this list would be C. Kleiber, Karajan, Bernstein, Furtwangler and Toscanini. Then there would be a second tier comprising Klemperer, Walter, Reiner, Beecham, Solti, Szell and Stokowski. Of course many are biased towards particular conductors who shaped them and their views of music. A lot of these names were more influential in the power they yielded than necessarily as great in the music they left behind.

I view De Sabata as a sort of Carlos Kleiber for the first half of the century, someone who was great in everything he did but left behind for us too little. Fortunately he left behind good sounding recordings of Tosca and Verdi's Requiem.

Barbirolli I view as underappreciated today. I may be biased due to what I see as his preeminence in Mahler, but across the board I think he was one of the most effective conductors ever, even when just accompanying.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Barbirolli I view as underappreciated today. I may be biased due to what I see as his preeminence in Mahler, but across the board I think he was one of the most effective conductors ever, even when just accompanying.


I also tend to think of Barbirolli under-appreciated. It is a pet peeve of mine that EMI/Warner has not compiled a complete Barbirolli edition (as they have for numerous conductors that I find less interesting).


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am listening to this rendition of Scheherazade presently. It's quite nice.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am listening to this rendition of Scheherazade presently. It's quite nice.
> 
> View attachment 121515


Way down the list for me. Too heavy and lacking in sensual spirit. Another example where the sound of the orchestra is really the only selling point of a Karajan recording.

Give me Stokowski, Beecham, Kondrashin, and Gergiev in this work. Previn's first account was also very good.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am listening to this presently. It's an excellent, enveloping recording.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Way down the list for me. Too heavy and lacking in sensual spirit. Another example where the sound of the orchestra is really the only selling point of a Karajan recording.
> 
> Give me Stokowski, Beecham, Kondrashin, and Gergiev in this work. Previn's first account was also very good.


Karajan is fun to listen to, particularly the finale. Ansermet/OSR is more idiomatic, a favorite with me.


----------



## amfortas

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My ranking of conductors we have on record:


Knappertsbusch?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

amfortas said:


> Knappertsbusch?


Oh wow, I was sure I had included him. I would put him in between two others K's, Kubelik and Kempe.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It must be said about Karajan that he was the last great exponent of the German tradition. He brought this tradition into the digital age so that young tykes like me could know what Beethoven is supposed to sound like. For this we owe him an immense amount of gratitude. As Werner Thärichen stated, he was a salesman, and as a result he exposed millions upon millions to classical music, not to mention introducing and popularizing 20th century works.

Karajan may get some flack from me and others for being a tad overrated as a conductor - he was far from the last word in interpretive genius - but his impact on classical music cannot be overstated. He was a giant in that regard.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It must be said about Karajan that he was the last great exponent of the German tradition. He brought this tradition into the digital age so that young tykes like me could know what Beethoven is supposed to sound like. For this we owe him an immense amount of gratitude. As Werner Thärichen stated, he was a salesman, and as a result he exposed millions upon millions to classical music, not to mention introducing and popularizing 20th century works.
> 
> Karajan may get some flack from me and others for being a tad overrated as a conductor - he was far from the last word in interpretive genius - but his impact on classical music cannot be overstated. He was a giant in that regard.


I have a different view of him. He had his own approach which was distinct from the tradition he came up in. A great emphasis on achieving a sound in each passage which reflects the nature of the music, as he understood it. In his best recordings his performances can seem to transcend the limitations of the orchestra. As if you are reading the score and imagining the music in your head, in which the limitations of practical instruments vanish. You loose some of the visceral excitement of an orchestral performance, but you can get a more ideal realization of the music.

In many cases I would not recommend a Karajan performance as the default recording of a piece, but as a very interesting alternative recording.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Baron Scarpia said:


> I have a different view of him. He had his own approach which was distinct from the tradition he came up in. A great emphasis on achieving a sound in each passage which reflects the nature of the music, as he understood it. In his best recordings his performances can seem to transcend the limitations of the orchestra. As if you are reading the score and imagining the music in your head, in which the limitations of practical instruments vanish. You loose some of the visceral excitement of an orchestral performance, but you can get a more ideal realization of the music.
> 
> In many cases I would not recommend a Karajan performance as the default recording of a piece, but as a very interesting alternative recording.


I tend to agree with this take, except for me his recordings are the standard, because of that aforementioned beauty and ideality. There are those who view this approach as sterile and artificial. I view it as reducing the unpredictable elements and getting to a purity of conception. Maybe it's because I'm not an avid musician myself, nor am I a frequent patron at concerts (I take in perhaps 4 or 5 free concerts anually, sitting on the lawn in Millennium Park, and 2 or 3 Chicago Symphony Orchestra concerts, usually in the loge). Anyway, there are definitely recordings here and there that are more spontaneous, and therefore more exciting. But Karajan is the baseline for me, and his versions of certain works are the best.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

For instance, I just listened to this recording of Saint Saens' Organ symphony. I had not heard it before. I found it to be lively and extremely well produced. Are there better recordings? Maybe. But I feel familiar enough with the piece now to judge other productions of it.

Karajan is like a really good restaurant. You can expect nearly everything to be prepared well. Sometimes it isn't the most inspired dish around, but occasionally it is.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> For instance, I just listened to this recording of Saint Saens' Organ symphony. I had not heard it before. I found it to be lively and extremely well produced. Are there better recordings? Maybe. But I feel familiar enough with the piece now to judge other productions of it.
> 
> Karajan is like a really good restaurant. You can expect nearly everything to be prepared well. Sometimes it isn't the most inspired dish around, but occasionally it is.


That's exactly what Karajan aimed for and why so many of us practicing musicians take issue with him. He wanted a monopoly on the recording industry. It was brand name classical music. You can always expect the same sound and the best production values. Served up just like a McDonald's Happy Meal.

Why take a chance on real artists taking bold risks? Karajan offers you dependability. It is corporate mediocrity to a tee. We see the same thing with movies today. Gone are the days of real stories and bold movies. Corporate Hollywood doesn't want to take risks. So they serve up the same regurgitated formulas that will guarantee ticket sales. Same concept as what Karajan offered.


----------



## hoodjem

Phil loves classical said:


> I would also mention his Bruckner 8, which sounds great, and his Prokofiev 5. Yes, his R. Strauss is great. I felt he was also quite good with Tchaikovsky's symphonies.


Yes. 
When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought of Karajan's Bach as his worst: turgid, glossy, uninteresting.

I believe that his best work is in the late 19th and 20th centuries: Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius, etc.
But his _sine qua non_ recording is probably that Prokofiev 5th: powerful, gripping, relentless, eerie. Unmatched even today.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's exactly what Karajan aimed for and why so many of us practicing musicians take issue with him. He wanted a monopoly on the recording industry. It was brand name classical music. You can always expect the same sound and the best production values. Served up just like a McDonald's Happy Meal.
> 
> Why take a chance on real artists taking bold risks? Karajan offers you dependability. It is corporate mediocrity to a tee. We see the same thing with movies today. Gone are the days of real stories and bold movies. Corporate Hollywood doesn't want to take risks. So they serve up the same regurgitated formulas that will guarantee ticket sales. Same concept as what Karajan offered.


I hear what you say, but the McDonald's analogy is not apt. Karajan's output is better than a Happy Meal. I would say it's more of a Wolfgang Puck situation. A guy who is a world class chef, but wants to own ten or more restaurants around the world.

In my reading on Karajan, I think it stems from his desperate pre-war and mid-war years, of near starvation. He was driven to be financially successful. I don't think the art flowed from that, though. He had a conception of the perfect sound that he desired and worked towards for decades, he didn't alter the sound to be "more commercial."


----------



## Becca

My feeling is that Karajan was at his best when he had an equally strong willed person in the control room and the orchestra board room, i.e. Walter Legge. In the later Berlin years he became the undisputed boss which can be both good and bad ... the bad being that there aren't many willing to stand up to him when needed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> He was driven to be financially successful. I don't think the art flowed from that, though. He had a conception of the perfect sound that he desired and worked towards for decades, he didn't alter the sound to be "more commercial."


Werner Tharichen, Berlin Philharmonic percussionist:

"Karajan was the first to be completely different. He wasn't a creator, but a fantastic salesman. He sold the music, he sold himself, and he sold us too. And that's appropriate these days, isn't it? We knew this, and that's why we wanted him. In the old days we got to know many incredibly beautiful things. Karajan, too, wanted this orchestra because it carried Furtwangler's sound."


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> My feeling is that Karajan was at his best when he had an equally strong willed person in the control room and the orchestra board room, i.e. Walter Legge. In the later Berlin years he became the undisputed boss which can be both good and bad ... the bad being that there aren't many willing to stand up to him when needed.


Yes Culshaw made the remark that in the end he was 'knee deep in doormats who would bow to his every whim...' Culshaw quoted the ridiculous cuts he made in the second Otello and the lazy recoding techniques used. Not to say that his later recordings were all bad by any means but I think a strong personality like HvK needed a strong producer like Legge or Culshaw to bring out the best. Of course, Karajan was a control freak and had absolutely everything under control in his own mind by the end which wasn't always helpful to those working with him. No question he had a genius for seeing a work like Tristan as a huge tapestry but lesser mortals could fall short of the ideal and it could lead to strange balances in the recording.


----------



## Guest

Becca said:


> My feeling is that Karajan was at his best when he had an equally strong willed person in the control room and the orchestra board room, i.e. Walter Legge. In the later Berlin years he became the undisputed boss which can be both good and bad ... the bad being that there aren't many willing to stand up to him when needed.


There is something to this, something great coming from the clash of two strong personalities. And I think it extended into his first decade of recording with the Berlin Philharmonic through the end of the 60's when he making his mark. When it reached the point that DG couldn't say no to him and he got interested in tinkering with the recording process he started to become a parody of himself. There were flashes of brilliance in the last two decades, but not matching the creativity of the early years.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's exactly what Karajan aimed for and why so many of us practicing musicians take issue with him. He wanted a monopoly on the recording industry. It was brand name classical music. You can always expect the same sound and the best production values. Served up just like a McDonald's Happy Meal.


You expect to be taken seriously when you compare Karajan's recordings of Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, to a happy meal?

You could say Karajan/BPO was the IBM of classical music. There was a saying, "no one was ever fired for buying IBM." It was a reliable, high quality, expensive product, not necessarily the most innovative product. It's good to have IBM and it's good to have alternatives to IBM.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Baron Scarpia said:


> You expect to be taken seriously when you compare Karajan's recordings of Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, to a happy meal?
> 
> You could say Karajan/BPO was the IBM of classical music. There was a saying, "no one was ever fired for buying IBM." It was a reliable, high quality, expensive product, not necessarily the most innovative product. It's good to have IBM and it's good to have alternatives to IBM.


Yes, this is a good analogy. IBM occasionally innovates and moves the industry forward. But they can always be counted on to get the fundamentals right.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> Yes, this is a good analogy. IBM occasionally innovates and moves the industry forward. But they can always be counted on to get the fundamentals right.


Yes, I'm thinking of the IBM of Karajan's day. I remember a story I heard working in a research lab. They had an IBM computer, maybe an IBM system 360, or something similar. They got a budget increase and contacted IBM because they wanted to upgrade it to a faster system. The IBM tech guy comes out, and they're expecting him to install a fancy new logic board to upgrade the CPU. Instead, he opens the thing up, removes a jumper, or some such, "all done." It was the same computer, you just had to pay extra to be allowed to run it full speed. 

Not entirely sure the machine was an IBM, could have been something like a DEC Vax/780.

Anyone here old enough to have programmed a Vax using a real VT100 terminal. (Not some VT100 emulator running under DOS, windows, etc.)


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> There is something to this, something great coming from the clash of two strong personalities. And I think it extended into his first decade of recording with the Berlin Philharmonic through the end of the 60's when he making his mark. When it reached the point *that DG couldn't say no to him* and he got interested in tinkering with the recording process he started to become a parody of himself. There were flashes of brilliance in the last two decades, but not matching the creativity of the early years.


Interesting that the 'tinkering' took place mainly with the EMI opera sets. Karajan liked to experiment with the latest technology and (in Culshaw's words) 'didn't know as much as he thought he knew' even though he knew more than most conductors. So his tinkering in the control room was sometimes near disastrous. Warner need to remaster the opera sets like Don Carlo and Trovatore and Tristan. Some were also done in QUAD which didn't help. I think the later years struggled to match the earlier years simply because of the skyscraper standards he set in sets like Falstaff and Rosenkavelier. But sets like Salome, Bruckner 4 & 7 for EMI, the final Ballo for DG are brilliant.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Speaking of digital-era Karajan, I am listening to his digital Brahms cycle presently. It is truly unimpeachable. Exciting, rich, full of excellent sonics and playing. It belies the reputation of his 80's recordings.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's exactly what Karajan aimed for and why so many of us practicing musicians take issue with him. He wanted a monopoly on the recording industry. It was brand name classical music. You can always expect the same sound and the best production values. Served up just like a McDonald's Happy Meal.
> 
> Why take a chance on real artists taking bold risks? Karajan offers you dependability. It is corporate mediocrity to a tee. We see the same thing with movies today. Gone are the days of real stories and bold movies. Corporate Hollywood doesn't want to take risks. So they serve up the same regurgitated formulas that will guarantee ticket sales. Same concept as what Karajan offered.


The 'connaisseurs' market is not at all interesting for sales. So, the market HvK/DG went for were people with little or no knowledge of classical music, but who were just buying his records because Karajan had become the household name. Also, any regular recordstore with a small classical music collection would know that Karajan always sold and they would not invest in other names. And HvK was the Kim Kardashian of his day, a socialite figure with a strong brand name. Together with the big yellow label on the record sleeve and the Godlike portraits by Lauterwasser, HvK had his own printed Instagram.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> You expect to be taken seriously when you compare Karajan's recordings of Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, to a happy meal?
> 
> .


Frankly I don't think anyone could take the gentleman seriously when he says things like this. I doubt whether any practicing musician of any standing would say the brilliant playing of the BPO (and VPO) on so many recordings could be compared to a McDonald's Happy meal. Just a bit of envy and sour grapes probably that he was not one of them?


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> The 'connaisseurs' market is not at all interesting for sales. So, the market HvK/DG went for were *people with little or no knowledge of classical music,* but who were just buying his records because Karajan had become the household name. Also, any regular recordstore with a small classical music collection would know that Karajan always sold and they would not invest in other names. And HvK was the Kim Kardashian of his day, a socialite figure with a strong brand name. Together with the big yellow label on the record sleeve and the Godlike portraits by Lauterwasser, HvK had his own printed Instagram.


Frankly I don't know how you can expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this. Have you got proof that the people who bought Karajan's recordings were people with little or no knowledge of classical music? I could say the same about Kleiber that there was the big yellow label and the godlike figure on the front of his recording of Beethoven 5 & 7. I realise now I shouldn't have bought it as it was a con of the marketing people and the performance is of no value.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

NLAdriaan said:


> The 'connaisseurs' market is not at all interesting for sales. So, the market HvK/DG went for were people with little or no knowledge of classical music, but who were just buying his records because Karajan had become the household name. Also, any regular recordstore with a small classical music collection would know that Karajan always sold and they would not invest in other names. And HvK was the Kim Kardashian of his day, a socialite figure with a strong brand name. Together with the big yellow label on the record sleeve and the Godlike portraits by Lauterwasser, HvK had his own printed Instagram.


This comparison is rubbish. First Happy Meals, now Kardashians? GMAFB.

What's next.... "did you know he joined the Nazi party?"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> You expect to be taken seriously when you compare Karajan's recordings of Bruckner, Brahms, Wagner, to a happy meal?


In the realm of fast food, absolutely. You are taking the low road of characterizing my comment as equating classical music with fast food. That's a primordial interpretation of my words. To the extent that McDonald's was about mass production, standardization, and advertising to drown out all competition, yes the comparison is completely apt.

I believe one of my very first comments on this thread was about Karajan providing reliable interpretations in good sound. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are thirsting for more as I tend to do.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> In the realm of fast food, absolutely. You are taking the low road of characterizing my comment as equating classical music with fast food. That's a primordial interpretation of my words. To the extent that McDonald's was about mass production, standardization, and advertising to drown out all competition, yes the comparison is completely apt.
> 
> I believe one of my very first comments on this thread was about Karajan providing reliable interpretations in good sound. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are thirsting for more as I tend to do.


Primordial?

Let's turn that around. How could I describe the impression of pulling into a MacDonalds drive-through and getting a happy meal? Well, imagine going to the Große Musikvereinssaal in Wiener and hearing Karajan perform Bruckner Symphony No 8. It's like that.

Yep, perfect analogy. :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> Primordial?
> 
> Let's turn that around. How could I describe the impression of pulling into a MacDonalds drive-through and getting a happy meal? Well, imagine going to the Große Musikvereinssaal in Wiener and hearing Karajan perform Bruckner Symphony No 8. It's like that.


I was trying to be creative. Let's go with simplistic.

And yet here you go again reverting to a simplistic interpretation of what I was getting at. Do you understand what an analogy is?

My point remains - standardization, commercialism, mass production, brand name advertising to drown out competition...all hallmarks of Herbert von Karajan **AND** McDonalds.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I was trying to be creative. Let's go with simplistic.
> 
> And yet here you go again reverting to a simplistic interpretation of what I was getting at. Do you understand what an analogy is?
> 
> My point remains - standardization, commercialism, mass production, brand name advertising to drown out competition...all hallmarks of Herbert von Karajan **AND** McDonalds.


BH, I think the analogy inspires disdain because of the vast difference in technical and artistic difficulty between creating a Happy Meal and creating a orchestral performance, even a mediocre one.

For instance, I loathe this performance of the 9th. But it's still perversely impressive in its technical execution.






This is not analogous to fast food, or slow food. It's a group of artists with considerable skills being tortured by a perverse director.

I think the worst you could say of HvK's output is that it was a group of supremely skilled musicians being asked to play relatively conservative interpretations of canon warhorses at a very high level.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^
There is a poster who is always citing Karajan’s massive record sales as proof of his genius. I would thus think that comparing HvK to a worldwide sales juggernaut like McDonald’s would be flattering.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ^
> There is a poster who is always citing Karajan's massive record sales as proof of his genius. I would thus think that comparing HvK to a worldwide sales juggernaut like McDonald's would be flattering.


Are you referring to me? Because I've never held his sales stats as being an indication of genius. His sales stats are an indicator of having consistently made things many people want to own. On this level, the IBM analogy above is a more apt one.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think the worst you could say of HvK's output is that it was a group of supremely skilled musicians being asked to play relatively conservative interpretations of canon warhorses at a very high level.


And no, that is NOT the worst you can say of HvK's output. The worst you can say of HvK's output is that he reduced classical music interpretation to glossy, superficial renderings meant to seduce audiences with beautiful sounds as opposed to offering legitimate artistic insight into the minds, hearts, and genius of the composers, thus cheapening the music in the pursuit of mass fame and financial gain.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Are you referring to me? Because I've never held his sales stats as being an indication of genius. His sales stats are an indicator of having consistently made things many people want to own. On this level, the IBM analogy above is a more apt one.


No, I am not referring to you


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And no, that is NOT the worst you can say of HvK's output. The worst you can say of HvK's output is that he reduced classical music interpretation to glossy, superficial renderings meant to seduce audiences with beautiful sounds as opposed to offering legitimate artistic insight into the minds, hearts, and genius of the composers, thus cheapening the music in the pursuit of mass fame and financial gain.


I think this thread has run it's course....


----------



## D Smith

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And no, that is NOT the worst you can say of HvK's output. The worst you can say of HvK's output is that he reduced classical music interpretation to glossy, superficial renderings meant to seduce audiences with beautiful sounds as opposed to offering legitimate artistic insight into the minds, hearts, and genius of the composers, thus cheapening the music in the pursuit of mass fame and financial gain.


Thanks for clarifying your position. I will keep this in mind when reading any future post from you.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> And no, that is NOT the worst you can say of HvK's output. The worst you can say of HvK's output is that he reduced classical music interpretation to glossy, superficial renderings meant to seduce audiences with beautiful sounds as opposed to offering legitimate artistic insight into the minds, hearts, and genius of the composers, thus cheapening the music in the pursuit of mass fame and financial gain.


Well, I don't think that's what HE thought he was doing, and I doubt the egos of the BPO would have allowed for it, either.

I also have a difficult time understanding the difference between "seducing" and "entertaining." Is "beauty" a disqualifier for "serious" music? Does all music have to be difficult and challenging? Do all books have to be Proust or James Joyce? Do all movies have to be Lars von Trier slog-fests?

We're going to have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Werner Tharichen, Berlin Philharmonic percussionist:

"*He viewed himself as the center of it all. He had to get involved for himself and for his career. Karajan was the first to be completely different. He wasn't a creator, but a fantastic salesman. He sold the music, he sold himself, and he sold us too.* And that's appropriate these days, isn't it? We knew this, and that's why we wanted him. In the old days we got to know many incredibly beautiful things. Karajan, too, wanted this orchestra because it carried Furtwangler's sound."


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I don't have a bevy of pro-Karajan quotes ready for copying and pasting. But I've read a couple of biographies. He did not think that was his sole role. He was an artist, and an accomplished musician in his own right, who saw it as his calling to bring music to as many people as he could. He loved the music of the great composers, and wanted to use it to bring people joy.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Werner Tharichen, Berlin Philharmonic percussionist:
> 
> "*He viewed himself as the center of it all. He had to get involved for himself and for his career. Karajan was the first to be completely different. He wasn't a creator, but a fantastic salesman. He sold the music, he sold himself, and he sold us too.* And that's appropriate these days, isn't it? We knew this, and that's why we wanted him. In the old days we got to know many incredibly beautiful things. Karajan, too, wanted this orchestra because it carried Furtwangler's sound."


Maybe if you cut and paste that quote another five or six times we will be convinced that the bitter recriminations of an orchestra percussionist are the last word on the value of music.

:lol:

I knew an orchestral percussionist who denounced Karajan's opera recordings solely on the basis of the cymbal sound. (They were too big.)

:lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

So apparently this thread should be retitled. We are only supposed to talk about the best of Karajan and not the worst.

The funny thing is I have sung Karajan's praises and recommended recordings throughout this thread, and I'll do it again:

I feel about Karajan the same way Tommy Lasorda feels about Rolaids.

How do I spell classical music quality? K-A-R-A-J-A-N


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I have listed several Karajan recordings that I think are pretty bad misfires, as have other contributors.

There's a difference between saying that "Person X made some bad records" and "Person X's artistic output is analogous to McDonald's fast food."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> "Person X's artistic output is analogous to McDonald's fast food."


NOT what I was saying and I think you already know this if you are being intellectually honest. Perhaps you and the other poster are using this canard to avoid addressing the actual point I was making.


----------



## Merl

Karajan is no different to Bernstein (see other thread} in that he did some things very well (IMO) and other things badly. Here's a perfect example. His first Planets with the VPO was really good and quite frankly I'm surprised he remade it with the BPO but he did (probably because he could) . The result - a vastly inferior account, sludgy, pedestrian and thoroughly ghastly in every way (that Jupiter was really insipid). I get what Bhs is saying and what you're saying, Matthew, but it's a shame that these Karajan threads often deteriorate into slanging matches. Please don't let this one go the same way. I now expect to be told to stfu. Lol

Very good Karajan:








Rubbish Karajan:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> That's exactly what Karajan aimed for and why so many of us practicing musicians take issue with him. He wanted a monopoly on the recording industry. It was brand name classical music. You can always expect the same sound and the best production values. Served up just like a McDonald's Happy Meal.
> 
> Why take a chance on real artists taking bold risks? Karajan offers you dependability. It is corporate mediocrity to a tee. We see the same thing with movies today. Gone are the days of real stories and bold movies. Corporate Hollywood doesn't want to take risks. So they serve up the same regurgitated formulas that will guarantee ticket sales. Same concept as what Karajan offered.


OK, I'm trying to be "intellectually honest" and I am searching for the point you were trying to make.

-I am trying to figure out how "same sound and best production values" is analogous to the contents of a Happy Meal. They are not - the contents of a happy meal are rather subpar in quality compared to other hamburgers, chicken nuggets, and so on. I doubt even the most virulent Karajan-hater would accuse the players of the BPO and VPO of being subpar.

-So maybe it's the delivery system? I fail to see how the delivery system for Karajan's music differs substantially from Bernstein's, Solti's, Chailly's, Barenboim's, or any other conductor who is featured as a "personality" in their albums. Is Karajan's more rushed, as the analogy imples? I don't think so- Karajan was a prolific producer of recordings, yes, but this is because by all accounts he almost never stopped working.

-Is it that the material is marketed to children, or people with simplistic tastes (a la the Happy Meal target demographic)? That doesn't seem right, either. I can't say I've ever seen an advertisement for a Karajan recording outside of the same publications that feature those other artists.

So yeah. I tried my best. I do not think I can be accused of not giving your ideas an honest and proper hearing. I just disagree with them.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> Karajan is no different to Bernstein (see other thread} in that he did some things very well (IMO) and other things badly. Here's a perfect example. His first Planets with the VPO was really good and quite frankly I'm surprised he remade it with the BPO but he did (probably because he could) . The result - a vastly inferior account, sludgy, pedestrian and thoroughly ghastly in every way (that Jupiter was really insipid). I get what Bhs is saying and what you're saying, Matthew, but it's a shame that these Karajan threads often deteriorate into slanging matches. Please don't let this one go the same way. I now expect to be told to stfu. Lol
> 
> Very good Karajan:
> View attachment 121706
> 
> 
> Rubbish Karajan:
> View attachment 121707


Totally agree on these recordings. The former is exceptional, the latter is bland.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We're all just expressing opinions. I think it is safe to say that the essential difference between Karajan and Bernstein was that Karajan took a more conservative route and thus had more consistency in his recordings, whereas Bernstein was very emotionally spontaneous and produced recordings that were more hit or miss. At the end of the day I rank their output about even.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Frankly I don't know how you can expect to be taken seriously when you say things like this. Have you got proof that the people who bought Karajan's recordings were people with little or no knowledge of classical music? I could say the same about Kleiber that there was the big yellow label and the godlike figure on the front of his recording of Beethoven 5 & 7. I realise now I shouldn't have bought it as it was a con of the marketing people and the performance is of no value.


If you would only have a little knowledge of marketing and sales and market segments, and if you would not feel offended that your hero's products are compared to a children's dinner, mainly bought because of the toy that goes with it, you would agree with what we are saying here.



> It's the economy, stupid!


And it is you that bragged about the net worth of HvK at the time of his death. Well, if HvK had not understood anything about economics and sales and branding, he would have never earned so much money, not by far. Just like Kim Kardashian and just like Macdonald's.

Simple, isn't it!


----------



## Merl

Inversely, of all his later recordings his 80s Eroica is a cracker. His Philharmonia 3rd isn't shoddy either (he never did a bad Eroica) but in comparison it's not a patch on the late one.

Excellent Karajan:








Good Karajan:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> We're all just expressing opinions. I think it is safe to say that the essential difference between Karajan and Bernstein was that Karajan took a more conservative route and thus had more consistency in his recordings, whereas Bernstein was very emotionally spontaneous and produced recordings that were more hit or miss. At the end of the day I rank their output about even.


Agreed. Everything I've read about Bernstein leads me to believe he was a self-indulgent, sybaritic personality, which shows in his expressive, sometimes melodramatic musical interpretations. Karajan was much more emotionally controlled, with a somewhat austere conception of beauty, but also has a taste for high performance cars, planes, etc. And his music displays these features.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> Inversely, of all his later recordings his 80s Eroica is a cracker. His Philharmonia 3rd isn't shoddy either (he never did a bad Eroica) but in comparison it's not a patch on the late one.
> 
> Excellent Karajan:
> View attachment 121708
> 
> 
> Good Karajan:
> View attachment 121709


I'll take his 77, but yes  I need to compare the earlier ones to his 80s recording. I did it once many moons ago when I was settling on which Karajan Beethoven to listen to, and the extra intensity of the 2nd movement in the 77 was what sold me.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Inversely, of all his later recordings his 80s Eroica is a cracker. His Philharmonia 3rd isn't shoddy either (he never did a bad Eroica) but in comparison it's not a patch on the late one.
> 
> Excellent Karajan:
> View attachment 121708
> 
> 
> Good Karajan:
> View attachment 121709


Agreed. That Karajan recording is on my list of "Essential" Eroicas:

Furtwängler (1944)
Furtwängler (12/8/1952) 
Klemperer (1957) 
Klemperer (1959) 
Toscanini (1939) 
Barbirolli (1967)
Karajan (1984) 
Kleiber (1950)


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> If you would only have a little knowledge of marketing and sales and market segments, and if you would not feel offended that your hero's products are compared to a children's dinner, mainly bought because of the toy that goes with it, you would agree with what we are saying here.
> 
> And it is you that bragged about the net worth of HvK at the time of his death. Well, if HvK had not understood anything about economics and sales and branding, he would have never earned so much money, not by far. Just like Kim Kardashian and just like Macdonald's.
> 
> Simple, isn't it!


I'm not offended but you appear to be. Having worked in sales I'm not least offended by it. The marketing of the Kleiber recording of the 5th was exactly the same as that given to Karajan. I remember it vividly! Child's toy? Maybe! But then it's your phrase not mine! :lol:

And where does the 'hero' bit come in? We're talking about musicians here not Marvel comics for goodness sake! :lol:

You appear offended by the fact some guy was an earner. Too bad! Name calling! Sour grapes? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> *OK, I'm trying to be "intellectually honest" *and I am searching for the point you were trying to make.
> 
> .


There is no point in trying to be 'intellectually honest' with someone who frankly isn't and is practising a form of pseudo one-upmanship.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> There is no point in trying to be 'intellectually honest' with someone who frankly isn't and is practising a form of pseudo one-upmanship.


Oh, well. I can only be what I am.

I can't say whether BH is being intellectually dishonest. I have no reason to believe he isn't. I'm not inside his head. Therefore I will reserve judgment and try to elucidate my opinion in a kindly way.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> OK, I'm trying to be "intellectually honest" and I am searching for the point you were trying to make.
> 
> -I am trying to figure out how "same sound and best production values" is analogous to the contents of a Happy Meal. They are not - the contents of a happy meal are rather subpar in quality compared to other hamburgers, chicken nuggets, and so on. I doubt even the most virulent Karajan-hater would accuse the players of the BPO and VPO of being subpar.
> 
> -So maybe it's the delivery system? I fail to see how the delivery system for Karajan's music differs substantially from Bernstein's, Solti's, Chailly's, Barenboim's, or any other conductor who is featured as a "personality" in their albums. Is Karajan's more rushed, as the analogy imples? I don't think so- Karajan was a prolific producer of recordings, yes, but this is because by all accounts he almost never stopped working.
> 
> -Is it that the material is marketed to children, or people with simplistic tastes (a la the Happy Meal target demographic)? That doesn't seem right, either. I can't say I've ever seen an advertisement for a Karajan recording outside of the same publications that feature those other artists.
> 
> So yeah. I tried my best. I do not think I can be accused of not giving your ideas an honest and proper hearing. I just disagree with them.


Wow, if this is what you call being intellectually honest I don't know what to say. Hopefully you were just trying to be funny.

I spelled it out earlier to another poster:

"To the extent that McDonald's was about mass production, standardization, and advertising to drown out all competition, yes the comparison is completely apt."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> There is no point in trying to be 'intellectually honest' with someone who frankly isn't and is practising a form of pseudo one-upmanship.


Just can't handle disagreement, can you?


----------



## Itullian

Received this the other day. It's a pretty great cycle.
I like the new remaster


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, if this is what you call being intellectually honest I don't know what to say. Hopefully you were just trying to be funny.
> 
> I spelled it out earlier to another poster:
> 
> "To the extent that McDonald's was about mass production, standardization, and advertising to drown out all competition, yes the comparison is completely apt."


Well, I missed that. Nonetheless, I still think it is inapt. I think "mass production" only applies to the manufacturing process, and advertisement is immaterial to the quality of the product.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Itullian said:


> Received this the other day. It's a pretty great cycle.
> I like the new remaster


That was the first copy of the 77 cycle I owned. The Blu-Ray has even better sound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Well, I missed that. Nonetheless, I still think it is inapt. I think "mass production" only applies to the manufacturing process, and advertisement is immaterial to the quality of the product.


The key thing you are missing in the McDonald's comparison is STANDARDIZATION. The consumer is taught what to expect and therefore doesn't want to experiment with something different. Thus the consumer becomes hooked on McDonald's as the mark of fast food quality just like he gets hooked on Karajan as the mark of classical music recording quality. It is smoke and mirrors, but it works.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The key thing you are missing in the McDonald's comparison is STANDARDIZATION. The consumer is taught what to expect and therefore doesn't want to experiment with something different. Thus the consumer becomes hooked on McDonald's as the mark of fast food quality just like he gets hooked on Karajan as the mark of classical music recording quality. It is smoke and mirrors, but it works.


I think "smoke and mirrors" is a bit much. It's a style, and one you seem to mostly dislike, with some exceptions. I like it, with some exceptions (notably Bach).


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The key thing you are missing in the McDonald's comparison is STANDARDIZATION. The consumer is taught what to expect and therefore doesn't want to experiment with something different. Thus the consumer becomes hooked on McDonald's as the mark of fast food quality just like he gets hooked on Karajan as the mark of classical music recording quality. It is smoke and mirrors, but it works.


I don't know where you got this bizarre Karajan conspiracy theory. DG had Karajan, Decca had Solti, Philips had Haitink, RCA had Reiner, Columbia had Szell and Bernstein, Mercury had Dorati. All of the big record labels had a top-billed conductor for whom they sought to build brand loyalty. It had to be a very productive conductor that liked making recordings. Karajan's style was what it was, it was how he thought the music should be played. It wasn't a conspiracy to brainwash record buyers with a hypnotizing sound. He was marginally more successful than the others probably because he was the most photogenic of the lot, he had personal charisma and his period of activity was a good match to the period of time when commercial recording of music took off.

Any by the way, there lots of things that could be used for an analogy with "standardization." An iPhone, a Toyota Camry, a Sony Television. Picking low quality junk food for children is a provocation.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't know where you got this bizarre Karajan conspiracy theory. DG had Karajan, Decca had Solti, Philips had Haitink, RCA had Reiner, Columbia had Szell and Bernstein, Mercury had Dorati. All of the big record labels had a top-billed conductor for whom they sought to build brand loyalty. It had to be a very productive conductor that liked making recordings. Karajan's style was what it was, it was how he thought the music should be played. It wasn't a conspiracy to brainwash record buyers with a hypnotizing sound. He was marginally more successful than the others probably because he was the most photogenic of the lot, he had personal charisma and his period of activity was a good match to the period of time when commercial recording of music took off.
> 
> Any by the way, there lots of things that could be used for an analogy with "standardization." An iPhone, a Toyota Camry, a Sony Television. Picking low quality junk food for children is a provocation.


Look, you don't have to see the difference if you don't want to. I see it, others see it, and even the Berlin timpanist I quoted attested to it. Karajan was in it for his own glorification. He wasn't an artist on the plane of Furtwangler, Walter, and Klemperer, men who had principles and musical passion that translated into fame. With Karajan it all started with ambition. The beautiful sound was a vehicle to get him there. That works for some, fine. I know a conductor personally who is cut from the same cloth and very successful at it. He favors superficial perfection of sound over artistic vulnerability. I rarely work with him anymore and I take it as a compliment. I'm too authentic, not slick enough. To each their own.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Of course! How could I not have seen it before! I was wrong to like his music. I was wrong, critics who gave him favorable reviews were wrong, hundreds of thousands of concert patrons were wrong, hundreds of millions of album purchasers were wrong. What fools we were!

I can't believe I spent all that time _thinking_ that I was enjoying music. Clearly I was not.

Now begins the laborious process of selling all of my Karajan CDs on eBay, and replacing them with their Furtwangler equivalents, which I will _actually_ enjoy. (Furtwangler, of course, was renowned for having no ambition, desire for fame, or professional jealousy)

Now, can you settle whether strawberry or chocolate ice cream is the better flavor? I fear I have had the incorrect preference all these years.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Of course! How could I not have seen it before! I was wrong to like his music. I was wrong, critics who gave him favorable reviews were wrong, millions of concert patrons were wrong, hundreds of millions of album purchasers were wrong. What fools we were!
> 
> I can't believe I spent all that time _thinking_ that I was enjoying music. Clearly I was not.
> 
> Now begins the laborious process of selling all of my Karajan CDs on eBay, and replacing them with their Furtwangler equivalents, which I will actually enjoy. (Furtwangler, of course, was renowned for having no ambition, desire for fame, or professional jealousy)
> 
> Now, can you settle whether strawberry or chocolate ice cream is the better flavor? I fear I have had the incorrect preference all these years.


Please quote back to me the very last sentence of my last post.

Now explain how that sentence in any way, shape, or form insinuates what you just typed.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Please quote back to me the very last sentence of my last post.
> 
> Now explain how that sentence in any way, shape, or form insinuates what you just typed.


Saying "to each their own" does not erase dozens of posts insinuating that people who like a thing possess childish and ignorant tastes. The first part of your last post does the same. It's tiresome.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Saying "to each their own" does not erase dozens of posts insinuating that people who like a thing possess childish and ignorant tastes. The first part of your last post does the same. It's tiresome.


That's absolute rubbish. I have a right to speak my opinion of Karajan. I said NOTHING denigrating about people who disagree with me. Let's be grown ups here. We all have different tastes, as has been stated on this board ad nauseum.

If you want to say something negative about Furtwangler, go right ahead. Why should I take it personally?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> The first part of your last post does the same. It's tiresome.


And if you would read my words in context, I was replying to a poster calling my opinion a "bizarre conspiracy theory." I was merely pointing out that I am not alone in my opinion. That did NOT imply that everyone must see it the same way. To the contrary, I was refuting that insinuation by a fellow poster.

Let's please stop being so thin-skinned to others' opinions.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

You have indeed been denigrating towards those who do not share your opinion, by making unflattering analogies and claiming some sort of artistic and intellectual purity on your own part and on the parts of those who agree with you (strongly implying the reverse for those who do not). 

But if it gets you to stop repeating it ad nauseam, fine. You're the bigger man and you have been nothing but charitable. Can you please get the last word in now and be done with it? I promise I won't respond.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am not a fan of this piece yet, and this recording did nothing to sell it to me (I've also listened to the Dutoit recording). Meandering, aimless, boring. Definitely a miss for HvK.


----------



## BachIsBest

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 121727
> 
> 
> I am not a fan of this piece yet, and this recording did nothing to sell it to me (I've also listened to the Dutoit recording). Meandering, aimless, boring. Definitely a miss for HvK.


You could try Klemperer or any of the Davis recordings. I don't think Karajan was particularly suited for Berlioz (although I never would have thought him suited for Mahler but it worked quite nicely) but do regret that he never conducted _Les Troyens_.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

BachIsBest said:


> You could try Klemperer or any of the Davis recordings. I don't think Karajan was particularly suited for Berlioz (although I never would have thought him suited for Mahler but it worked quite nicely) but do regret that he never conducted _Les Troyens_.


Thanks for the suggestions! I will give them a listen.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Beecham is a must-listen for Symphonie fantastique


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> You could try Klemperer or any of the Davis recordings. I don't think Karajan was particularly suited for Berlioz (although I never would have thought him suited for Mahler but it worked quite nicely) but do regret that he never conducted _Les Troyens_.


I would give the Klemperer a miss if you don't like your Berlioz boring. The Karajan is actually pretty good I thought though Davis is a better bet with this composer. The fact is that Karajan could turn in a pretty good performance with most composers and his name guaranteed it sold. Hence he did record stuff that wasn't his forte. But you could say the same about Klemperer in his heyday with EMI. He turned out some wretched stuff especially on his days when his manic-depressive order was upper-most. At the time all the record companies tended to be over-recording stuff with legions of conductors but there are some people who bang on as if Karajan was the only one. The legacy we have now of course is a tremendous choice of past recordings from which to choose from all sorts of conductors which would be unthinkable to be recorded today.


----------



## DavidA

One story I do like about Karajan is when he was invited to conduct a youth orchestra at the Satzburg Festival. There was a training school for the young people and Karajan flew there and trained the young people for the concert, ate with them and talked with many of them about their futures in music. For this he charged no fee and paid all his own expenses. Apparently the only Karajanism was when he rang the local airport and asked if the runway could be extended to accommodate his private jet! When told it couldn't he hired (at his own expense) another. Of course, as pointed out, he could afford it, but so could other maestros who the young people would have liked the experience of working with who put themselves out of court by the fees they charged. Just another side of Karajan, a highly complex man.


----------



## DavidA

I think for someone to make the statement:

"To the extent that McDonald's was about mass production, standardization, and advertising to drown out all competition, yes the comparison is completely apt."

about orchestras which were recognised as the greatest in Europe (if not the world) and whose standard of playing was almost supernaturally speaks volumes that the gentleman who made the comment simply did not know what on earth he was talking about. Please, we are talking about the BPO and the VPO here, not the Spice Girls! :lol:


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 121727
> 
> 
> I am not a fan of this piece yet, and this recording did nothing to sell it to me (I've also listened to the Dutoit recording). Meandering, aimless, boring. Definitely a miss for HvK.


I don't recall ever listening to Karajan in the symphonie fantastique. (I suspect there are more than one.) I only appreciated the piece after hearing Markevitch/Lamoreaux.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

*Norman Lebrecht: The clapped-out legacy of Karajan that impoverished classical music*
_The centenary of the conductor's birth is no occasion for genuine music lovers to celebrate. Hitler's poster boy offered nothing to art while ruthlessly crushing creativity_

Waking up in the morning to Herbert von Karajan on the radio, I have to rub my eyes and check the calendar to make sure that Mao Tse-tung is not alive and the Soviet Union still a world power.
There was a time, defined by dictatorship, to which Karajan provided the musical backdrop. He was ubiquitous in the 1970s and 1980s, a commanding cultural presence with admirers in high places. When he died in July 1989, I found myself on the Today programme popping balloons of adulation that came from a fawning Edward Heath. Karajan was everything a fallen politician longed to be: ultra-elegant and all-powerful.

The centenary of his birth this weekend is being marked by an outpouring of product from a music industry that he raised to prosperity and propelled to near-ruin. If the mainstream of classical recording has shrivelled to a trickle in the past five years, that is the inevitable aftermath of the Karajan glut. If classical music itself is widely (if unfairly) considered to be elitist, staid and retrospective, we have Herbert von Karajan to thank for making it a safe, corporate entertainment at prohibitively priced festivals.

These truths are pretty much self-evident, yet there are still nostalgists to be found in sections of the press defending his "greatness", a meaningless critical term, and even the once cocky figure of Simon Rattle, at the rostrum of Karajan's Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, feels obliged to pay concerts of homage to the old tyrant in his anniversary year. Who knows, there may be hope yet for a Brezhnev revival.

Karajan, as music director and profiteer, ruled the summits of Berlin and Salzburg from the mid-1950s, paying record fees to his best pals and using rehearsals with his state-salaried orchestra to double as sessions for commercial recordings. He enriched himself and his players beyond measure, leaving a tax-sheltered fortune of $500m and a pile of some 900 recordings. He manipulated the record industry by divide and rule, always working with two major labels while courting a third. At one point he accounted for one-third of the revenues of Deutsche Grammophon (DG), the largest classical label.

Almost everything Karajan conducted came out super-smooth, like cotton undershirts from a washing conditioner. Whether it was Bach or Bruckner, Rigoletto or Rapsodie Espagnole, the music followed a seamless line of artificial beauty that owed less to the composer's invention than to the conductor's intent on manufacturing a recognisable product. And unmistakable it was. I once entered a Manhattan art bookstore, high-ceilinged and wood-panelled, and asked the attendant to replace the Tchaikovsky on the sound system. "How did you know it was Karajan conducting?" he exclaimed. "He makes it so obvious," I replied.

A DG tribute set by his widow, Eliette, reveals the conductor at both his worst and his best. The first disc opens with a doubly pasteurised Beethoven Pastoral, synthetic to a fault, followed by homogenised Debussy and Ravel and a Mahler Adagietto from which all pain has been anaesthetised - a travesty of Mahler. The second disc contains extracts of oratorio and opera, some of them transcendentally moving - an effulgent "Erbarme mich" from Bach's St Matthew Passion, a thrilling "Dies Irae" from Verdi's Requiem and clips from Wagner's Walküre. The bigger the forces, the better Karajan liked it.

If he had any kind of genius, it was for organisation and opportunity. Growing up in Salzburg after the First World War, when a tiny mountain town became the second city of a shrunken Austrian state, he learned the perils of being powerless. On Hitler's rise in 1933 he joined the Nazi party not once but twice and was rewarded with a post at Aachen, the youngest music director in the Reich. Before long he was hailed by the Goebbels-controlled press as "Das Wunder Karajan" - the Karajan Miracle - in contrast to the politically unreliable Wilhelm Furtwängler. Karajan learned from Goebbels how to play one man against another, among other black political arts. He strutted his stuff in occupied Paris and Amsterdam, to all effects the Nazi poster boy.

After the war, he was suspended from public concerts pending an investigation of his Nazi past, but an EMI executive, Walter Legge, brought him to London to record with the Philharmonia Orchestra, made up of newly demobilised British fighting men. That relationship, which lasted a decade, gave Karajan training in adversarial politics and a liking for conflict. After Furtwängler's death in 1954 he became conductor for life in Berlin, using the Reich's broken capital as his bridgehead for imperial expansion. His home town festival in Salzburg was converted into a black-tie thrice-yearly assembly of industrial plutocrats, masters of the universe.

No musician in history ever sought the power that Karajan achieved in his pomp, a power that extended by emulation or submission to many of the world's concert halls and festivals. Reactionary by nature, he stuck to the classical and romantic mainstream, excluding non-tonal music and ulterior styles of performance. Christoph von Dohnanyi went so far as to accuse him of destroying the German conducting tradition by imposing his narrow tastes so monumentally on the art. Nikolaus Harnoncourt, who played the cello in Karajan's Vienna orchestra, was shut out of Salzburg and Berlin once he started conducting with period instrument ensembles in a manner that contradicted the Karajan orthodoxy. Every time Karajan recorded a Beethoven cycle - and he did so five times - meant one fewer chance for alternative interpretations.

His hegemony was autocratic, brooking no contradiction. When Berlin players refused in 1983 to accept his introduction of a female clarinettist, Sabine Meyer, he shifted his activities to the rival Vienna Philharmonic. Disgruntled with DG, he was plotting at his death to join Sony. He knew no loyalty except to himself. His love of music was confined to the way he made it.

His power, unlike Brezhnev's, was founded, however, on a winning charm. Many, such as Daniel Barenboim whom Karajan had demeaned for years, found themselves tempted by a flattering late overture. On the only occasion he asked to meet me, in 1985, I decided to decline the offer of an interview, preferring to observe him at a distance, the way most musicians did. He was capable of private kindness to his players, as well as unwarranted cruelty, cutting a friend dead for no apparent reason.

Karajan's Nazi past is not incidental, though it was not of the kind that committed holocausts. There is no suspicion that he committed race crimes and his Reich career took a dip after 1942, when he married a wealthy heiress of part-Jewish extraction.

What he adopted from the Nazis was a set of values which he applied to the innocent and inefficient music industry with unwavering ruthlessness. If there was one lesson Karajan took from the Nazis, it was the supremacy of German music and the imperative of world dominance. He demonstrated that music was mostly a matter of power.

Many were, and remain, impressed. Some, like myself, found his attitude anti-musical. I have trouble listening to Karajan on the radio with any kind of equanimity.

The centenary "celebration" of his life is a last-ditch attempt by the music industry to flog profit from a dead lion. Some of the commemorations are supported by covert subsidies from a well-organised, extraordinarily wealthy Karajan estate. It is, though, more than a little surprising to find the Philhamonia Orchestra, which gave him no quarter, putting on a Karajan memorial concert at the Royal Festival Hall this week under Sir Charles Mackerras.

One aspect of the Karajan debate, raised by Dominic Lawson, is whether "we should join in the celebrations of the life of an ex-Nazi" - a man who never recanted his political affiliation. Lawson broadened the issue to discuss whether a bad man can make good art, and how we should relate to art from a tainted source. That question, relevant to Wagner, is incidental to Karajan who never created an original work.

Whether Herbert von Karajan was a bad man or a good man is immaterial. He was a brilliant organiser with the gift of tuning an orchestra to his personal sound, an ability that he exploited to extreme ends. He inflicted his ego on the world of classical music in a way that crushed independence and creativity and damaged its image for future generations. It is not the bad man he was that we should deplore but the reactionary and exclusivist legacy which is being "celebrated". For music lovers, there is not much to celebrate. Once the centenary is over, we will drop the curtain once and for all on a discreditable life that yielded no fresh thought and upheld no worthwhile human value. Karajan is dead. Music is much better off without him.


----------



## DavidA

I think we've all read Norman Lebrecht's 'clapped-out legacy of Karajan', which is his usual masterpiece of misinformation. Just the usual drivel from a clapped-out critic. The problem is that Lebrecht sinks his own arguments with his own misinformation. It was as bad as the drivel Rodney Milne wrote on Karajan's death for the Spectator. Those of us who actually knew some history knew that he was making it up as he went along. The problem is as soon as you introduce things which are not true you sink your own boat and defeat your own argument. Norman Lebrecht got taken to court over one of his books through blatantly introducing things which were not true in order to try and bake his argument. The problem was that time he did it with the person living who could sue him for doing it. It's okay being a good wordsmith but you've actually got to have your facts correct


----------



## KenOC

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *...*Karajan is dead. Music is much better off without him.


Jim Svejda is another Karajan hater. How many party cards did he have? But so what. There are several Karajan performances of Romantic-era works that I think are quite fine, regardless of the Wehrmacht uniforms he kept carefully folded under his bed.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Jim Svejda is another Karajan hater. How many party cards did he have? But so what. There are several Karajan performances of Romantic-era works that I think are quite fine, regardless of the Wehrmacht uniforms he kept carefully folded under his bed.


It's quite amusing the people this gentleman trots out. Just who are they? Just how many audiences do they command? Seems to be an awful lot of people who want to make their name by dissing someone who was successful. But then to be a critic is easy, that's why so many people do it. The only qualification is to be a loser


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

KenOC said:


> Jim Svejda is another Karajan hater. How many party cards did he have? But so what. There are several Karajan performances of Romantic-era works that I think are quite fine, regardless of the Wehrmacht uniforms he kept carefully folded under his bed.


Svejda's book is an excellent recording resource.

Karajan was at his best in works that benefit from beauty of sound. In works that require heart and warmth, he was limited. Beethoven's Pastorale is an example.


----------



## Larkenfield

DavidA said:


> It's quite amusing the people this gentleman trots out. Just who are they? Just how many audiences do they command? Seems to be an awful lot of people who want to make their name by dissing someone who was successful. But then to be a critic is easy, that's why so many people do it. The only qualification is to be a loser


You know nothing about this man. He's highly respected in the CM field and has been on the air for over 30 years in a large market centered in the considerable city of Los Angeles. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with him. He has a large following and his opinion is valued. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with him. Herbert von Karajan does not walk on water, nor does Jim Sveda, but his reservations about the conductor are hardly unprecedented, similar to the doubts, disappointments, and reservations by others that have been expressed in this thread.

HvK has a highly polarized audience since he died and there's a reevaluation of his recordings going on, with some found wanting in sound quality or his approach, and the true believers don't like this. The hard part is that they won't grant that some of his recordings were poor, misguided, or distorted. He also did some fine recordings, such as some of his Sibelius recordings, and they have been mentioned in this thread. But it's evident to some that his reputation is not as high as it used to be and listeners have given their reasons, including too much tampering with the recorded sound. He went too far and now there's a backlash. But I believe that the greater part of his legacy will endure.


----------



## Taggart

Please concentrate on the OP.

Do not introduce political jokes.

If you report a post, do not respond to it.

Some posts have been removed for moderator consideration.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> You know nothing about this man. He's highly respected in the CM field and has been on the air for over 30 years in a large market centered in the considerable city of *Los Angeles.* But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with him. He has a large following and his opinion is valued. But that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with him. Herbert von Karajan does not walk on water, nor does Jim Sveda, but his reservations about the conductor are hardly unprecedented, similar to the doubts, disappointments, and reservations by others that have been expressed in this thread.
> 
> *HvK has a highly polarized audience since he died *and there's a reevaluation of his recordings going on, with some found wanting in sound quality or his approach, and the true believers don't like this. The hard part is that they won't grant that some of his recordings were poor, misguided, or distorted. He also did some fine recordings, such as some of his fine Sibelius recordings, and they been mentioned in this thread. But it's evident to some that his reputation is not as high as it used to be and listeners have given their reasons, including too much tampering with the recorded sound. He went too far and now there's a backlash. But I believe that the greater part of his legacy will survive.


No wonder I have never heard of this guy as Los Angeles is pretty far from UK and might be in another world as far as we are concerned. Frankly a man who calls a musician like Harnoncourt an "incompetent bozo" does not deserve to be taken seriously. A stupid thing to say. Just an opinionated failure trying to live of the success of others more competent than himself. They can't do it but they can criticise those who do. Claudia Cassidy of Chicago was another. I know Solti called her 'the worst sort of music criticism.'
People like to believe Karajan polarises opinion but I think that is only in the minds of a few like Sveda with an axe to grind and an income to be made through criticism of others which people of negative mindsets like himself like to feed on. In general HvK's performances are pretty good. The only problem is he often did better. Say his 1980s Beethoven symphonies would be more highly regarded (in the remastering) if it were not for the fact he brought out three masterly sets before. He also recorded things for which he was less suited partly for his own amusement and partly to satisfy DG accountants who knew he would sell. But people talk as if Karajan was the only conductor to have duds. I mean even the revered Carlos Kleiber had his duds. I have a performance of Schubert 3 by him which is absolutely dreadful, shorn of repeats and driven into the ground as if he wanted to get away in a hurry (he probably did). This by a conductor who had a reputation for extreme fastidiousness. Considering the amount Karajan recorded (and he was probably his own worst enemy in this regarding his own reputation) his consistency is remarkable.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Here is one I think belongs in the "best of" category. Despite its late vintage, it is both intensely driven and lyrical when it needs to be. Is it that the VPO 80's material was better? Or is it the choice of compositions?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Another excellent recording. I cannot speak to alternative interpretations of these works. But I was riveted by this disc all the way through, which is not always the case for such modern compositions.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I am listening to this collection right now. I must say, the textures in the soft passages are magical, but the climaxes are also powerful. 70's analogue recording at its best. A great platter for headphone listening, because of all the diaphanous detail.


----------



## DavidA

I would recommend getting to know Karajan live. These opera recordings are quite different from the buffed performances of Mozart he could give in the studio. So much for the tin-eared critics who say he conducted everything the same! The Don is quite terrifying and the Figaro far more involved than in the studio where (according to von Stade) he was in a mood and treated everyone like school kids!


----------



## Open Book

DavidA said:


> View attachment 121759
> 
> 
> I would recommend getting to know Karajan live.


I tend to agree with this. I subscribe to the Berlin Philharmonic and along with the current broadcasts are some archived live performances that go back decades. There's an exciting "Missa Solemnis" with Karajan that I keep going back to. Also a very enjoyable "Das Rheingold".


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Darn it, guys, if you make me get a BPO subscription, my wife might make me stop coming here!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

After thoroughly listening through the new hi-res set from DG, I think Karajan's Tchaikovsky has to be included among the "best recordings." Absolutely impeccable late analog recordings, with thrillingly romantic interpretations and peerless playing by the BPO.


----------



## Becca

MatthewWeflen said:


> Darn it, guys, if you make me get a BPO subscription, my wife might make me stop coming here!


You can do a month-to-month subscription and cancel at any time. I like to take a month, checkout what's new out there, then skip 4-6 months, etc., etc.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> Like any conductor there are recordings of his i love and others that dont float my boat at all. Here's two i love. For me, this Beethoven cycle is still the benchmark i judge others against and that Mahler 9 is something else.
> 
> View attachment 121332
> 
> 
> View attachment 121333
> 
> 
> And two that are far from terrible but a bit soggy and overblown
> 
> View attachment 121334
> 
> 
> View attachment 121335
> 
> 
> I much prefer Karajan's VPO Planets and i have so many other great Schumann cycles that this one has slipped so far down the list its not on the radar any more.











I just listened to his Schumann 1 and 2 this morning. They are excellent! I'll be following up with 3 and 4 later today. Maybe I'm a sucker for "soggy and overblown," but I can't really see any reason to favor the other version I have of these (Bernstein/VPO).


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 122584
> 
> 
> I just listened to his Schumann 1 and 2 this morning. They are excellent! I'll be following up with 3 and 4 later today. Maybe I'm a sucker for "soggy and overblown," but I can't really see any reason to favor the other version I have of these (Bernstein/VPO).


I have a love / hate relationship with HvK's Schumann cycle. When I first got it I loved it then I fell totally out of love with it and didn't play it in years. About 5 years ago I came back to it and loved it all over again. Then, about 2 years ago, I couldn't play it again (finding it sloppy and lush). Just recently I played his 3rd and 4th again and the love returned. I've never had such a continual love / hate relationship with any recording like this. Mad.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Here's another for the best of pile:









I wonder if perhaps his 80s recordings with the VPO were better than those with the BPO as a rule? Because this Dvorak 9th is just crackling with intensity and beauty.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> Here's another for the best of pile:
> 
> View attachment 122636
> 
> 
> I wonder if perhaps his 80s recordings with the VPO were better than those with the BPO as a rule? Because this Dvorak 9th is just crackling with intensity and beauty.


There are three I have:























The Vivaldi was actually switched to the VPO as Karajan by this time was in dispute with the BPO over Sabine Meyer. He knew it would be a bit earner (it was) and would hurt pockets! The Bruckner were his valedictory recordings and are superb.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> There are three I have:
> 
> View attachment 122641
> 
> View attachment 122643
> 
> View attachment 122642
> 
> 
> The Vivaldi was actually switched to the VPO as Karajan by this time was in dispute with the BPO over Sabine Meyer. He knew it would be a bit earner (it was) and would hurt pockets! The Bruckner were his valedictory recordings and are superb.


I own all three, and they are indeed superlative.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> Here's another for the best of pile:
> 
> View attachment 122636
> 
> 
> I wonder if perhaps his 80s recordings with the VPO were better than those with the BPO as a rule? Because this Dvorak 9th is just crackling with intensity and beauty.


Those are outstanding, but I think his Dvorak 9/BPO/EMI is is best recording of that work, and his Moldau/BPO/DG (1965?) is his best recording of that work.


----------



## Rogerx

Another priceless set.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Rogerx said:


> Another priceless set.


Is that an SACD, or is it indicating that it was mastered at 96/24?


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> Is that an SACD, or is it indicating that it was mastered at 96/24?


An ordinary CD.


----------



## Rogerx

MatthewWeflen said:


> Is that an SACD, or is it indicating that it was mastered at 96/24?





Baron Scarpia said:


> An ordinary CD.


But the sound is stunning so the latter.
( see in red)


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> But the sound is stunning so the latter.
> ( see in red)


It was one of Culshaw's early stereo masterpieces.


----------



## DavidA

This is a fabulous performance which captures stars and conductor at the height of their powers. Yes I know that some of Karajan's tempi are somewhat slow but the playing of the VPO (and Culshaw's recording) allows us to hear Bizet's scoring. Price is incredibly sexy and although Corelli is singing in a language no Francophile would recognise, the voice is absolutely thrilling.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/best-karajan-10-great-recordings/

Some stalwart choices on this list, some interesting ones that go against conventional wisdom.


----------



## Rogerx

MatthewWeflen said:


> https://www.udiscovermusic.com/classical-features/best-karajan-10-great-recordings/
> 
> Some stalwart choices on this list, some interesting ones that go against conventional wisdom.





> Mahler: Symphony No. 5 (4794668)
> Herbert von Karajan and Berliner Philharmoniker
> "… in the unprecedented virtuosity of their realization of the Fifth Symphony- its refinement and intoxication, as well as its terrors and agonizing portents of a new age - the aesthete Karajan and his orchestra have made a striking contribution to the history of Mahler interpretation. For Karajan it was a protracted quest, for the listener it is a belated discovery," observes Peter Fuhrmann in his liner notes.


Now that one is controversial, specialy on this site.
Stunning though but he, what do I know.


----------



## haydnguy

MatthewWeflen said:


> The question of what listeners want is tricky. How are we to measure this? If it's by comments here, then the verdict is split. If it's by album sales, then it seems as though listeners most definitely want what Karajan brings to the table.
> 
> As far as "not noticing" goes, we were literally just discussing the differences between different recordings. It is clear that Karajan developed a taste for greater post-production alteration later in his career. Some times it worked to positive effect, some times it didn't.


I want the sound equipment set up, of course, so the music sounds as good as possible but I don't want a lot of post processing. I want to hear how the music really sounded.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> As far as "not noticing" goes, we were literally just discussing the differences between different recordings. It is clear that Karajan developed a taste for greater post-production alteration later in his career. Some times it worked to positive effect, some times it didn't.


I think "post production alteration" peaked in the 70's. Through the 80's, particularly towards the end, the audio engineering became more honest, to my ears.


----------



## annaw

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think "post production alteration" peaked in the 70's. Through the 80's, particularly towards the end, the audio engineering became more honest, to my ears.


And he still produce some good recordings during 80's. For example, his 80's "Eroica" is sometimes said to be even better than any from his earlier LvB symphony cycles.


----------



## Blancrocher

HvK has lots of bests in my book, though his Sibelius recordings have a special place in my heart. 

The worst? Maybe his Symphony of Psalms.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I've been listening to his 70s Tchaikovsky and his 60s Sibelius a lot lately. They increase in my estimation each time.


----------



## flamencosketches

Karajan's may be the greatest recording ever made of Anton Webern's symphony. His Mahler Kindertotenlieder/Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig is also very, very good. No comment on his Beethoven, which I used to like but have been re-evaluating (the problem may either be with Karajan, or with the symphonies themselves - the jury is still out). His Sibelius is indeed good and the composer agreed.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

flamencosketches said:


> Karajan's may be the greatest recording ever made of Anton Webern's symphony. His Mahler Kindertotenlieder/Rückert-Lieder with Christa Ludwig is also very, very good. No comment on his Beethoven, which I used to like but have been re-evaluating (the problem may either be with Karajan, or with the symphonies themselves - the jury is still out). His Sibelius is indeed good and the composer agreed.


I'll give the Webern a listen in the next day, it's been a while.

I'm curious about the problems with Beethoven, whether they originate from Karajan or from (gasp!) Beethoven.


----------



## flamencosketches

I love Beethoven, I just think I am not in a receptive phase for his symphonies at the moment.


----------



## Merl

Yes yes yes....exciting and gripping









No no no.... Badly phrased and sloppy (however it does have great sound)


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> And he still produce some good recordings during 80's. For example, his 80's "Eroica" is sometimes said to be even better than any from his earlier LvB symphony cycles.


I should listen to that.

His final recordings of Bruckner 7 and 8 are the finest he ever did, I think. Also the Strauss, Tod und Verklarung (I won't even try to spell it right), Metamorphosen, Don Juan, Ein Heldenleben, Alpine, are beautifully done. The Brahms Requiem (WPO). The late Brahms 2. There are quite a few bright gems, although he was narrowing down his repertoire. Still, I think the 60's was his best decade.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Yes yes yes....exciting and gripping
> 
> View attachment 123628
> 
> 
> No no no.... Badly phrased and sloppy (however it does have great sound)
> 
> View attachment 123629


Funny, I enjoy both. The BPO recording is bleaker than the VPO


----------



## Kiki

Think the VPO version is more spontaneous, while I've been absolutely smitten by the beauty of the BPO verison, but it's a bit like swimming in double cream.


----------



## Guest

Kiki said:


> Think the VPO version is more spontaneous, while I've been absolutely smitten by the beauty of the BPO verison, but it's a bit like swimming in double cream.


I've only heard the original issue of the BPO version, and I found the audio overly strident. I only ever listen to Mars and Jupiter from the planets, and found both to be satisfying performances. But then again, I also like the almost universally hated Maazel/Orchestra Nazional de France version.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> I should listen to that.
> 
> *His final recordings of Bruckner 7 and 8 are the finest he ever did, I think.* Also the Strauss, Tod und Verklarung (I won't even try to spell it right), Metamorphosen, Don Juan, Ein Heldenleben, Alpine, are beautifully done. The Brahms Requiem (WPO). The late Brahms 2. There are quite a few bright gems, although he was narrowing down his repertoire. Still, I think the 60's was his best decade.


Although an incredible Bruckner 7 on EMI with BPO. One problem with the later recordings was that Karajan set himself such high standards with the earlier ones. But taken on their own there is much to delight the ear like the late Decca Puccini operas. Even the Turandot is astonishing even though Ricciarrelli is miscast.


----------



## Kiki

Baron Scarpia said:


> I've only heard the original issue of the BPO version, and I found the audio overly strident. I only ever listen to Mars and Jupiter from the planets, and found both to be satisfying performances. But then again, I also like the almost universally hated Maazel/Orchestra Nazional de France version.
> 
> ...


Almost universally hated? Now I want to hear it!



DavidA said:


> Although an incredible Bruckner 7 on EMI with BPO. One problem with the later recordings was that Karajan set himself such high standards with the earlier ones. But taken on their own there is much to delight the ear like the late Decca Puccini operas. Even the Turandot is astonishing even though Ricciarrelli is miscast.


Karajan's Turandot is amazingly beautiful, but I concur the biggest problem is with Ricciarrelli's metaphorical singing for being icy (maybe that's the vision...). I'm sure Barbara Hendricks' adorable Liù has more fans than Ricciarrelli's Turandot. But then I also find it hard to enjoy Ricciarrelli's Tosca for Karajan. Leontyne Price is much more affectionate.


----------



## Guest

Given that they were both marquee artists, I wonder why DG never tried to put Karajan together with Pollini. Pollini was paired with Bohm in the early recordings, then Abbado. I would have thought the musical aesthetic of Karajan and Pollini would have been compatible.

Oh well, just an idle thought.


----------



## DavidA

Kiki said:


> Almost universally hated? Now I want to hear it!
> 
> Karajan's Turandot is amazingly beautiful, but I concur the biggest problem is with Ricciarrelli's metaphorical singing for being icy (maybe that's the vision...). I'm sure Barbara Hendricks' adorable Liù has more fans than Ricciarrelli's Turandot. But then I also find it hard to enjoy Ricciarrelli's Tosca for Karajan. Leontyne Price is much more affectionate.


I know at the time HvK had plans to make a movie of Turandot in theForbidden City in China which never came off, which is maybe why he cast Ricciarrelli who at least looked something like the part. Unfortunately by this time the voice was on the wane. But the sheer power of this Turandot is amazing.


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> Funny, I enjoy both. The BPO recording is bleaker than the VPO


I don't hate the BPO account, I just find it sounds weird in comparison to the VPO recording. Its almost as if he's trying to force the tension which would explain why it sounds bleaker. The recording is sumptuous but it's always come across as a bit of an empty vessel. Jupiter suffers worst for me. It just never sounds right or natural whereas the far more spontaneous-feeling VPO recording is glorious in and around Jupiter's big tune. 
As for Maazel's Planets, Baron, it isn't as bad as the media made it out to be (that would be difficult) but it is pretty woeful. It could never be as bad as Herrmann's tedious Planets.


----------



## DavidA

I was listening to part of Karajan’s ring cycle last night and it really is a thing of wonder the way he makes the BPO glow through Wagner)s scoring. The Walkure Is particularly interesting the way uses lighter voices yet makes them tell by his accompaniment. Apparently the only time Hitler heard the young Karajan conduct, he declared the performance of Wagner’s "Die Meistersinger" to be "un-German”, which we may now take as a compliment, given Hitler’s idea of what to be ‘German’ was! Since Karajan’s Wagner mentors were Richard Strauss, Clemens Krauss, Toscanini, and Bruno Walter, this is not surprising. This 'Die Walküre,' recorded at the time of the launching of Karajan’s Salzburg Easter Festival in 1967, is a memorable example of Karajan’s mastery of the Wagner orchestra -- and his inspired direction of a hand-picked cast that includes Gundula Janowitz and Jon Vickers as Siegmund and Sieglinde.


----------



## DavidA

I don't know if these have been mentioned but they should. Karajan was first and foremost a man of the theatre, with a love of opera that transcended national boundaries. In Italy, they divide the history of the interpretation of "Cavalleria Rusticana" and "Pagliacci" between two periods: 'pre-Karajan' and 'post-Karajan.' When we listen to these beautiful and blazingly intense performances we see why. They really are quite astonishing.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I recently splurged on a Japanese Blu-Ray Audio of the VPO Planets. It has a 192khz/24b recording that I ripped and put on my music player. It is slightly clearer than the CD version, and makes it a bit easier to pick out individual instruments. I also recently did a blind comparison thread of several other major renditions. I still like the Karajan/VPO the best (though James Levine/CSO has vaulted upwards in my estimation).









What amazes me is how frenetic he allows the Mars movement to become. It belies his reputation as a rigidly controlled "gloss" artist.


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> I
> 
> View attachment 123657
> 
> 
> What amazes me is how frenetic he allows the Mars movement to become. It belies his reputation as a rigidly controlled "gloss" artist.


Don't believe the hype. ;-)


----------



## Kiki

<Rigidly controlled "gloss"> in a hater's language may mean disciplined, demanding a high standard, and glorious for advocates.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Kiki said:


> <Rigidly controlled "gloss"> in a hater's language may mean disciplined, demanding a high standard, and glorious for advocates.


I'm with you.

Listening to this right now. My goodness it's transcendent.


----------



## Guest

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'm with you.
> 
> Listening to this right now. My goodness it's transcendent.
> 
> View attachment 123695


Agreed. The intensity of expression of the metamorphoses is unsurpassed. The Tod und Verklarung is the best version I have heard. The moment of "death" (about 2/3 of the way through, the upward chromatic run on strings followed by a gentle stroke on the tam--tam) is performance genius.


----------



## Heck148

Kiki said:


> <Rigidly controlled "gloss"> in a hater's language may mean disciplined, demanding a high standard, and glorious for advocates.


or, an accurate assessment of HvK's persistent "one size [or sound] fits all" approach. :devil::devil:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Just listened again to the 1988 Bruckner 8th. Definitely on the Mt Rushmore of great HvK recordings. I think it’s fair to say he was the greatest Bruckner conductor after Furtwangler. I also listened to the 1971 EMI 7th. The Adagio is very well done.

My top modern sound recordings for Bruckner 4-9:

4: Bohm (Decca)
5: Jochum (Philips)
6: Klemperer (EMI)
7: Karajan (EMI ‘71)
8: Karajan (DG ‘88)
9: Giulini (DG)


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I was listening to part of Karajan's ring cycle last night and it really is a thing of wonder the way he makes the BPO glow through Wagner)s scoring. The Walkure Is particularly interesting the way uses lighter voices yet makes them tell by his accompaniment...This 'Die Walküre,' recorded at the time of the launching of Karajan's Salzburg Easter Festival in 1967, is a memorable example of Karajan's mastery of the Wagner orchestra -- and his inspired direction of a hand-picked cast that includes Gundula Janowitz and Jon Vickers as Siegmund and Sieglinde.


"Hand-picked" as a description of a Karajan-chosen opera cast strikes me as more of a warning than a recommendation. Most of his studio Wagner recordings with the BPO exhibit significant casting flaws, usually smallish voices in big roles, and sometimes simply mediocre singers (such as Dunja Vejzovic, a soprano who lets us down in the crucial roles of Senta and Kundry, and Peter Hoffmann, who is almost as bad as Erik and Parsifal). There's no reason outside of Karajan's inscrutable mind to cast cut-glass lyric soprano Gundula Janowitz as Sieglinde or intellectual Schubertian Dietrich-Fischer Dieskau as Wotan (in _Das Rheingold_). The only true dramatic voice in this _Walkure_ is that of Jon Vickers, and pairing his heroic Siegmund with the bland, virginal Janowitz sounds almost like statutory rape. Add to the eccentric casting certain peculiar balances in the engineering and certain mannerisms typical of late Karajan, and the result doesn't sound quite like Wagner to some of us.

I don't like opera recordings that use the microphone to "enlarge" voices that wouldn't be up to singing their roles onstage.


----------



## jdec

DavidA said:


> I was listening to part of Karajan's ring cycle last night and it really is a thing of wonder the way he makes the BPO glow through Wagner)s scoring. The Walkure Is particularly interesting the way uses lighter voices yet makes them tell by his accompaniment. Apparently the only time Hitler heard the young Karajan conduct, he declared the performance of Wagner's "Die Meistersinger" to be "un-German", which we may now take as a compliment, given Hitler's idea of what to be 'German' was! Since Karajan's Wagner mentors were Richard Strauss, Clemens Krauss, Toscanini, and Bruno Walter, this is not surprising. This 'Die Walküre,' recorded at the time of the launching of Karajan's Salzburg Easter Festival in 1967, is a memorable example of Karajan's mastery of the Wagner orchestra -- and his inspired direction of a hand-picked cast that includes Gundula Janowitz and Jon Vickers as Siegmund and Sieglinde.


Agree with you Sir. I love that pair, Gundula Janowitz and Jon Vickers as Siegmund and Sieglinde. This is probably my favorite "The Walkure".


----------



## Rogerx

The very worstlike ever.
Price to old /Bonisolli , he doesn't sing, he shouts.
Enough said.


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> The very worstlike ever.
> Price to old /Bonisolli , he doesn't sing, he shouts.
> Enough said.


I can't say this is the 'worst' even if the voices are manipulated somewhat and the thing needs remastering. It's a fiery account and Bonisolli certainly gives a good account of himself. Not the most subtle but doesn't shout.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Just listened again to the 1988 Bruckner 8th. Definitely on the Mt Rushmore of great HvK recordings. I think it's fair to say he was the greatest Bruckner conductor after Furtwangler. I also listened to the 1971 EMI 7th. The Adagio is very well done.
> 
> My top modern sound recordings for Bruckner 4-9:
> 
> 4: Bohm (Decca)
> 5: Jochum (Philips)
> 6: Klemperer (EMI)
> 7: Karajan (EMI '71)
> 8: Karajan (DG '88)
> 9: Giulini (DG)


It is interesting that the final VPO 7 is quite unlike the BPO 7. So much for those who say Karajan always conducted everything the same. Both incidentally are superb.


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> The only true dramatic voice in this _Walkure_ is that of Jon Vickers,


I think that Crespin's Brunnhilde is fantastic.


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> I think that Crespin's Brunnhilde is fantastic.


She sings the part very sympathetically, but I find her soft, feminine timbre not at all evocative of a warrior-maid. Her top notes have a hint of strain too; they don't ring out heroically. For me she's no exception to the generality that the singers in this recording don't sound, in vocal weight and timbre, like the characters they play. Whenever Vickers sings, I feel, "Ah, the real Wagner!"


----------



## wkasimer

Woodduck said:


> She sings the part very sympathetically, but I find her soft, feminine timbre not at all evocative of a warrior-maid.


I understand your point, but except for her Act 2 entrance, why shouldn't her timbre be feminine? Particularly when she's pleading with Wotan in Act 3, I think that the softer, more vulnerable-sounding voice is more appropriate.



> Her top notes have a hint of strain too; they don't ring out heroically.


High notes were never Crespin's thing, which may be why Karajan didn't use her for Siegfried or Gotterdammerung.



> Whenever Vickers sings, I feel, "Ah, the real Wagner!"


When I hear Vickers, I think "What distorted vowels! What awful German!"


----------



## DavidA

wkasimer said:


> I understand your point, but except for her Act 2 entrance, why shouldn't her timbre be feminine? Particularly when she's pleading with Wotan in Act 3, I think that the softer, more vulnerable-sounding voice is more appropriate.
> 
> High notes were never Crespin's thing, which may be why Karajan didn't use her for Siegfried or Gotterdammerung.
> 
> When I hear Vickers, I think "What distorted vowels! What awful German!"


Indeed she is feminine so why shouldn't her timbre be feminine? It's just a different interpretation of the role, not in the Nilsson mode. No doubt for this role Nilsson has the sheer voice but I must confess I find her somewhat difficult to love and shouldn't we love her? The point about certain top notes being under t=strain also applies to most singers of the role except perhaps the Nilsson's or Flagstads in their prime. I think Karajan's Ring is great because it offers a different perspective from the usual Wagner cannons. To me not hearing the 'usual' type of Wagner voices can be a blessing.
I think with Vickers you have to get used to the voice. If you can't then give up on it. When you get used to his rater different pronunciation his interpretation is fantastic. His contrast with Janowitz is special


----------



## Woodduck

wkasimer said:


> I understand your point, but except for her Act 2 entrance, why shouldn't her timbre be feminine? Particularly when she's pleading with Wotan in Act 3, I think that the softer, more vulnerable-sounding voice is more appropriate.


There's no way the sexy, urbane Regine Crespin ever hoisted a slain Viking onto a flying horse's back and carried him to Valhalla. I can imagine a live Viking following her voluntarily though... 



> When I hear Vickers, I think "What distorted vowels! What awful German!"


Imperfect accents don't bother me when the voice and artistry are there. I think Vickers is the finest Siegmund on records. On this _Walkure_ he eats that bland little tuning fork Gundula for lunch.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Indeed she is feminine so why shouldn't her timbre be feminine? It's just a different interpretation of the role, not in the Nilsson mode. No doubt for this role Nilsson has the sheer voice but I must confess I find her somewhat difficult to love and shouldn't we love her? The point about certain top notes being under t=strain also applies to most singers of the role except perhaps the Nilsson's or Flagstads in their prime. I think Karajan's Ring is great because it offers a different perspective from the usual Wagner cannons. To me not hearing the 'usual' type of Wagner voices can be a blessing.
> I think with Vickers you have to get used to the voice. If you can't then give up on it. When you get used to his rater different pronunciation his interpretation is fantastic. His contrast with Janowitz is special


Boy is this damning with faint praise.

I just listened to some of Karajan's _Walkure_ again to see if my initial impressions would be confirmed. They are. I don't think it's a bad performance, but its fine singers are not ideally cast, and in some moments and details it's oddly conducted. When it first came out on LP I found to my disappointment that I liked neither it nor the contemporary Solti (the weakest installment in that conductor's _Ring_). I went for the Leinsdorf recording, which has a solid cast of real dramatic voices and always sounds like Wagner.


----------



## DavidA

'Damning with faint praise'

I think you are reading into that what you want to. Certainly not what I have written elsewhere about this simply tremendously sung and conducted performance with the BPO roaring through the storms and flickering through the magic fire. I can understand how traditionalists might prefer the Leinsdorf but to me it is solid and unsubtle Wagner from both conductor and most of the cast and I want something more in this composer.


----------



## Zhdanov

Beethoven 9th live in Berlin philarmonie 1963 recording - one of the best ever and must be his best.


----------



## wkasimer

Zhdanov said:


> Beethoven 9th live in Berlin philarmonie 1963 recording - one of the best ever and must be his best.


How does it differ from his other recordings, other than inferior vocal soloists?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Woodduck said:


> and in some moments and details it's oddly conducted.


Agreed. Karajan's Walkure sounds odd to me as well. My preference is for Bohm over Karajan and Solti. Knappertsbusch '57 is excellent all around, and in surprisingly good sound.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Zhdanov said:


> Beethoven 9th live in Berlin philarmonie 1963 recording - one of the best ever and must be his best.


I would be very interested in owning that disc, but I'm not going to buy a whole set for it. Oh, well. YouTube will have to do.

And wow, what a thumbnail!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I know it's been said before, but Karajan's Sibelius 7 is just.... shivers, it's so good.









I had just finished the Rattle/BPO Sibelius cycle, and was left curiously unfulfilled by 7. 1-6 are all quite good, especially 3, and the sound quality is sublime throughout. But 7 left me wanting more. I found my mind wandering while listening.

Then I popped on the Karajan/BPO 7th from 1968. It is so lively, dynamic, and emotional, but mysterious and foreboding when the music calls for it. The pianissimi with the strings were spine tingling. The crescendos knocked my socks off. I was riveted, and this was after just having listened to the piece without a break in between.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

FYI, I came across this in my google feed - a full length Karajan documentary from 2018. Lots of good interview material and footage. It will be up until the end of the week (9/28).

https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/080106-000-A/karajan-portrait-of-a-maestro/


----------



## amfortas

Woodduck said:


> There's no reason outside of Karajan's inscrutable mind to cast cut-glass lyric soprano Gundula Janowitz as Sieglinde or intellectual Schubertian Dietrich-Fischer Dieskau as Wotan (in _Das Rheingold_). The only true dramatic voice in this _Walkure_ is that of Jon Vickers, and pairing his heroic Siegmund with the bland, virginal Janowitz sounds almost like statutory rape.


I don't know the Karajan Ring that well, but I do remember being put off by Janowitz's soubrettish Sieglinde. That and Jess Thomas's undercharacterized Siegfried. Admittedly, though, it's been quite a while since I gave it a listen.


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> I don't know the Karajan Ring that well, but I do remember being put off by Janowitz's soubrettish Sieglinde. That and Jess Thomas's undercharacterized Siegfried. Admittedly, though, it's been quite a while since I gave it a listen.


Funny how we differ. Janowitz's Sieglinde is absolutely refreshing to me after some of the heavier voices in the part and her partnership with Vickers is wonderful. Makes me want to listen to the music. Of course, traditionalists will disagree I know.
I agree Thomas is somewhat underpowered but he does suggest a young boy better than some.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> FYI, I came across this in my google feed - a full length Karajan documentary from 2018. Lots of good interview material and footage. It will be up until the end of the week (9/28).
> 
> https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/080106-000-A/karajan-portrait-of-a-maestro/


Good documentary. Of course the end bit which says 'He died in Elliette's arms' is untrue as his wife was out the house at the time. Karajan was talking to the head of Sony when he had his fatal heart attack. Portrait of an exceedingly complicated man. "Ruthless and unpredictable" was how John Culshaw summed him up. Probably pretty accurate. He was a many-sided figure, capable of being really cruel yet also capable of great acts of kindness. Of course you don't build an empire like he did just by being Mr Nice. Even Walt Disney had a dark side to him.


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> I agree Thomas is somewhat underpowered but he does suggest a young boy better than some.


As opposed to Windgassen, who sounds far from youthful in the Solti recording but draws on years of experience to present a vibrant character.

That's why we don't settle for just one version.


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> As opposed to Windgassen, who sounds far from youthful in the Solti recording but draws on years of experience to present a vibrant character.
> 
> That's why we don't settle for just one version.


Agree with you entirely. More than one way to skin a cat!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Two more recordings for the *Worst *pile:

Both of these recordings exemplify what I think are Karajan's worst qualities - tinkering in post to create unnatural sound effects.









The Scheherazade on this disc is really nice. the 1812 Overture is not. The canned cannon sounds drown out the music, and are miserable to listen to over headphones.









Speaking of a miserable headphone experience, this recording of Wellington's Victory not only has weird canned gunshots, but also aggressive stereo effects, in which one channel cuts out completely and all music is in the other channel. Really irritating.

The Egmont music is nice, though.


----------



## AfterHours

Though Karajan had his share of duds, when he is "on" few can match or surpass him. These may be his five best recordings:

*#1. Symphony No. 9 in D Major - Gustav Mahler (1910) / Berlin Philharmonic (1982 - Live Recording)*

(Surely the pinnacle of Mahler 9ths and in the running for the most astonishing recorded performance in all of Classical music)

Available on YouTube: 




*#2. Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824) / Berlin Philharmonic (1968 - Video Recording)*

(Probably the most amazing recording of Beethoven's 9th)

Available on Youtube: 




*#3. Symphonie Fantastique - Hector Berlioz (1830) / Berlin Philharmonic (1975)*

(Among the best renditions of this work)

Available on Youtube: 




*#4. Symphony No. 5 - Gustav Mahler (1902) / Berlin Philharmonic (1973)*

(Among the best renditions of this work)

Available on Youtube: 




*#5. Symphony No. 5 in B-flat - Sergei Prokofiev (1944) / Berlin Philharmonic (1966)*

(Probably the best rendition of this work)

Available on YouTube:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Back to the* Best:*









Dvorak Cello Concerto/Tchaikovsky Variations on a Rococo Theme, 1969

Rostropovich's playing is exquisite, the BPO is modulated perfectly, both the Dvorak and the Tchaikovsky are fabulous.


----------



## Guest

AfterHours said:


> Though Karajan had his share of duds, when he is "on" few can match or surpass him. These may be his five best recordings:
> 
> *#1. Symphony No. 9 in D Major - Gustav Mahler (1910) / Berlin Philharmonic (1982 - Live Recording)*
> 
> (Surely the pinnacle of Mahler 9ths and in the running for the most astonishing recorded performance in all of Classical music)
> 
> Available on YouTube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#2. Symphony No. 9 in D Minor "Choral" - Ludwig van Beethoven (1824) / Berlin Philharmonic (1968 - Video Recording)*
> 
> (Probably the most amazing recording of Beethoven's 9th)
> 
> Available on Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#3. Symphonie Fantastique - Hector Berlioz (1830) / Berlin Philharmonic (1975)*
> 
> (Among the best renditions of this work)
> 
> Available on Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#4. Symphony No. 5 - Gustav Mahler (1902) / Berlin Philharmonic (1973)*
> 
> (Among the best renditions of this work)
> 
> Available on Youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#5. Symphony No. 5 in B-flat - Sergei Prokofiev (1944) / Berlin Philharmonic (1966)*
> 
> (Probably the best rendition of this work)
> 
> Available on YouTube:


Interesting list. Significant overlap with a list of my favorites from Karajan's discography. Also interesting that some here will characterize some of your favorites as among the worst recordings of all time.  That's the nature of it.


----------



## flamencosketches

Baron Scarpia said:


> Interesting list. Significant overlap with a list of my favorites from Karajan's discography. Also interesting that some here will characterize some of your favorites as among the worst recordings of all time.  That's the nature of it.


Which are you talking about? The Mahler 5th? I know some hate it.


----------



## AfterHours

Baron Scarpia said:


> Interesting list. Significant overlap with a list of my favorites from Karajan's discography. Also interesting that some here will characterize some of your favorites as among the worst recordings of all time.  That's the nature of it.


I think people that "automatically hate" everything Karajan (or any great conductor) are often (not always) dubious (my opinion), as his ability to get his orchestra to play with utmost conviction and the highest technical level has few peers. I do agree that (roughly) post-1975 his renderings (particularly in many of his repeat efforts such as Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert...) increasingly tended towards over-polish (to varying degrees per recording: less grit/spontaneity, less organic flow, less definition between orchestral parts, overly string heavy).

I think its generally true that his recordings before this period are usually among the best, particularly when in his element.

There are still several great renditions after that period, even if he was far less consistent and got too polished (comfortable?) and maybe stopped looking for new ways to view the works he was recording.

However, I am not sure his 82 Live Mahler 9th can be surpassed for that work. Never say never but... Its technically unimpeachable all the way through and hits all the tempos right for its view/vision of the work (perhaps a more tragic one than its earliest incarnations with Walter and so forth, likely in part due to Karajan seeing the end himself). It maintains the highest pitch of intensity and expression for its entirety (without overstretching itself but maintaining just the right balance of overwhelming expressive force and the suspense that it all might fall apart at any moment; haunted by the harbinger of death). The highly characterful "sound" of each of the instruments alone is remarkable: each an individual expressing itself as if an extension of Das Lied, which the symphony might be seen as a more monumentally proportioned extension of its themes and emotional arc, and perhaps his whole life conflated to the seasons/Earth/universe/eternity ... but also each instrument sounds "world weary" / "summoning the strength to carry on" / "follied/grotesque" / "elegaic" / "of the old/nostalgic world fading from view" (etc ... highly idiomatic)... The fact this all happens in the unmistakable suspense and palpable inspiration of a live performance is almost impossible to me.


----------



## Heck148

Baron Scarpia said:


> Interesting list. Significant overlap with a list of my favorites from Karajan's discography. Also interesting that some here will characterize some of your favorites as among the worst recordings of all time.  That's the nature of it.


yup!! maybe not worst of all time, but certainly surpassed by many....


----------



## AfterHours

Heck148 said:


> yup!! maybe not worst of all time, but certainly surpassed by many....


Let me guess: Reiner/CSO?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Karajan’s ‘82 Mahler 9th is technically brilliant and just right in terms of tempo, but I prefer Barbirolli. More warmth, vulnerability and heart. Essential in Mahler.

And I prefer Furtwängler, Klemperer, Fricsay, Bernstein, and Bohm in the Beethoven 9th. Karajan is a bit too controlled in this work.

I would nominate the 1988 VPO Bruckner 8th as perhaps Karajan’s greatest achievement on record. Only Furtwängler surpasses him in this work.


----------



## Rogerx

flamencosketches said:


> Which are you talking about? The Mahler 5th? I know some hate it.


I do and I don't care if others don't like it


----------



## Guest

Rogerx said:


> I do and I don't care if others don't like it


Mahler 5 is certainly one that generates a lot of controversy. I like it. I don't think I've ever heard the symphonie fantastique, but I also seem to recall many who find fault with it.


----------



## Merl

After it was mentioned and highly recommended elsewhere on this site I got Karajan's 1975 Fantastique, expecting it to be OK, but it's excellent.


----------



## Heck148

AfterHours said:


> Let me guess: Reiner/CSO?


no, he never recorded Mahler 5 or 9 ...
Walter, Solti and Abbado did, tho, and Giulini recorded 1 and 9...


----------



## Guest

Merl said:


> After it was mentioned and highly recommended elsewhere on this site I got Karajan's 1975 Fantastique, expecting it to be OK, but it's excellent.


I have it as part of a set, but never got to it. I should try it.


----------



## Merl

Baron Scarpia said:


> I have it as part of a set, but never got to it. I should try it.


I got it for a few pounds secondhand, really not expecting much but its actually very, very good. The BPO's playing is first rate and Karajan creates a great atmosphere. Compared to Rattle's far-from-decent performance with the same orchestra its light years better.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> I got it for a few pounds secondhand, really not expecting much but its actually very, very good. The BPO's playing is first rate and Karajan creates a great atmosphere. Compared to Rattle's far-from-decent performance with the same orchestra its light years better.


I have it too. Pretty good I remember. I'll hear it again sometime.


----------



## Guest

Merl said:


> I got it for a few pounds secondhand, really not expecting much but its actually very, very good. The BPO's playing is first rate and Karajan creates a great atmosphere. Compared to Rattle's far-from-decent performance with the same orchestra its light years better.


The piece has just recently registered me (after many unsuccessful attempts) after listening to Markevich/Lamoreaux. I attributed it to the French wind band having the ability to be dramatic without being overpowering. Will queue Karajan for the next listen to the piece (whenever that may be).


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> The piece has just recently registered me (after many unsuccessful attempts) after listening to Markevich/Lamoreaux. I attributed it to the French wind band having the ability to be dramatic without being overpowering. Will queue Karajan for the next listen to the piece (whenever that may be).


I would also add there is a terrific performnce by Munch and the Boston SO


----------



## AfterHours

I am surprised I wasn't familiar with this recording before, but I recently discovered Karajan's Vienna Philharmonic rendition of Dvorak's 8th Symphony (Decca, 1965), which is among the finest ever recorded and should be on any shortlist of his very best performances. Highly, highly recommended, more expressively dynamic and lyrical than any rendition I know, while also very exciting and "spontaneous". A singular interpretation, actually. I'd probably rank it at the very top of all Dvorak 8th recordings (with the main contenders being: Honeck/PSO, Kertesz/LSO, Suitner/Staatskappelle Berlin, Harnoncourt/RCO, Dohnanyi/Cleveland ... and perhaps Szell/Cleveland, Kubilek/Berlin, one of Talich's).


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AfterHours said:


> I am surprised I wasn't familiar with this recording before, but I recently discovered Karajan's Vienna Philharmonic rendition of Dvorak's 8th Symphony (Decca, 1965), which is among the finest ever recorded and should be on any shortlist of his very best performances. Highly, highly recommended, more expressively dynamic and lyrical than any rendition I know, while also very exciting and "spontaneous". A singular interpretation, actually. I'd probably rank it at the very top of all Dvorak 8th recordings (with the main contenders being: Honeck/PSO, Kertesz/LSO, Suitner/Staatskappelle Berlin, Harnoncourt/RCO, Dohnanyi/Cleveland ... and perhaps Szell/Cleveland, Kubilek/Berlin, one of Talich's).


Best I've heard is Barbirolli/Halle


----------



## AfterHours

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Best I've heard is Barbirolli/Halle


Thank you! I dont recall the sound/interpretation of that Barbirolli off hand but Ive most likely heard it at some point in the last 15-20 years. I am right in the middle of surveying key Dvorak 8 recordings -- mostly revisits but some new (during a massive overall update of my own "best recordings list" for hundreds of classical works) so I will for sure place it at or near the front of my "to revisit" list (or if new to me, all the better).

What is it that places it at the top in your view?


----------



## DavidA

AfterHours said:


> Thank you! I dont recall the sound/interpretation of that Barbirolli off hand but Ive most likely heard it at some point in the last 15-20 years. I am right in the middle of surveying key Dvorak 8 recordings -- mostly revisits but some new (during a massive overall update of my own "best recordings list" for hundreds of classical works) so I will for sure place it at or near the front of my "to revisit" list (or if new to me, all the better).
> 
> What is it that places it at the top in your view?


There is a very beautiful recording with Giulini and the LAPO


----------



## Phil loves classical

AfterHours said:


> Thank you! I dont recall the sound/interpretation of that Barbirolli off hand but Ive most likely heard it at some point in the last 15-20 years. I am right in the middle of surveying key Dvorak 8 recordings -- mostly revisits but some new (during a massive overall update of my own "best recordings list" for hundreds of classical works) so I will for sure place it at or near the front of my "to revisit" list (or if new to me, all the better).
> 
> What is it that places it at the top in your view?


Talich's easily for me. Again his use of rubato sets it apart, and even though the playing isn't as great as say Kubelik's. Hurwitz got it right this time, maybe because the sound isn't nearly as bad as in the Mahler. There is even contrapuntal smearing he doesn't mention in the last little bit, undoubtedly because Talich pushed the pace so hard.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

AfterHours said:


> Thank you! I dont recall the sound/interpretation of that Barbirolli off hand but Ive most likely heard it at some point in the last 15-20 years. I am right in the middle of surveying key Dvorak 8 recordings -- mostly revisits but some new (during a massive overall update of my own "best recordings list" for hundreds of classical works) so I will for sure place it at or near the front of my "to revisit" list (or if new to me, all the better).
> 
> What is it that places it at the top in your view?


It has the most evocative atmosphere of any Dvorak 8 that I know


----------



## AfterHours

DavidA said:


> There is a very beautiful recording with Giulini and the LAPO


Thanks - dont recall if thats among the Giulini's 8ths that Ive heard or not. I'll check it out.


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> Talich's easily for me.


Love that one. Thats the main Talich I was referring to above (though he has earlier renditions well worth consideration too). If memory serves, it probably has the best case for "most lyrical and characterful instrumentation/orchestration" for Dvorak's 8th along with the above Karajan.


----------



## AfterHours

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It has the most evocative atmosphere of any Dvorak 8 that I know


Thank you, Ill revisit.


----------



## 89Koechel

Matthew - Glad that you like the ways/batons of Herb von K & Simon Rattle, in Sibelius! Well, there are OTHERS in the ways/interpretations of Sibelius, incl. Beecham, Maazel (his Decca/London cycle), Ehrling, Bernstein, Koussevitzky, Collins, Vanska and more. We even still have examples of Szell/Cleveland in the Sibelius 4th and other worthy ones ... but there's NO doubt that Herb von K had HIS place, in interpretating the Sage of Jarvenpaa.


----------



## DavidA

89Koechel said:


> Matthew - Glad that you like the ways/batons of Herb von K & Simon Rattle, in Sibelius! Well, there are OTHERS in the ways/interpretations of Sibelius, incl. Beecham, Maazel (his Decca/London cycle), Ehrling, Bernstein, Koussevitzky, Collins, Vanska and more. We even still have examples of Szell/Cleveland in the Sibelius 4th and other worthy ones ... but there's NO doubt that *Herb von K had HIS place, in interpretating the Sage of Jarvenpaa*.


Karajan's Sibelius was admired by the composer himself!


----------



## Enthusiast

I've never liked Karajan's Mahler 5 and 6. They seem lightweight in music that is incredibly dramatic - Boulez gets criticised in this repertoire but is excellent and very Mahlerian in his way but not Karajan. His 9th _is _good. I would never call it the best, though, and not only because there is no such thing (there are many really incredibly fine recordings of the work) but also because I don't find it one of those Karajan recordings that makes you think that other conductors should just give up (as does his his Sibelius and the first movement of his Shostakovich 10)!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

89Koechel said:


> Matthew - Glad that you like the ways/batons of Herb von K & Simon Rattle, in Sibelius! Well, there are OTHERS in the ways/interpretations of Sibelius, incl. Beecham, Maazel (his Decca/London cycle), Ehrling, Bernstein, Koussevitzky, Collins, Vanska and more. We even still have examples of Szell/Cleveland in the Sibelius 4th and other worthy ones ... but there's NO doubt that Herb von K had HIS place, in interpretating the Sage of Jarvenpaa.


I like Colin Davis and the LSO, too.


----------



## Rmathuln

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Best I've heard is Barbirolli/Halle


Nobody comes close to Silvestri IMHO.


----------



## AfterHours

Rmathuln said:


> Nobody comes close to Silvestri IMHO.


Thank you - never heard Silvestri's Dvorak! A very fresh approach, among the most "interpretive/characterful" approaches (up there with the Talich 1951 and the Karajan/Vienna 1965 above). I'll need to listen to it a few times or more before I decide (for me) if its among my top tier (such as: are his interpretive idiosynchracies more than a fresh novelty that withstand repeated revisits?). I was enthralled though, more often than not a good sign for the future


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> I've never liked Karajan's Mahler 5 and 6. *They seem lightweight* in music that is incredibly dramatic - *Boulez gets criticised in this repertoire but is excellent and very Mahlerian in his way* but not Karajan. His 9th _is _good. I would never call it the best, though, and not only because there is no such thing (there are many really incredibly fine recordings of the work) but also because I don't find it one of those Karajan recordings that makes you think that other conductors should just give up (as does his his Sibelius and the first movement of his Shostakovich 10)!


Amazing! I have both Karajan and Boulez and it would seem that Boulez's approach is lighter than Karajan's


----------



## DavidA

Karajan's last operatic recording was Verdi's Ballo. It really is quite special in the conducting as the first act seems almost a dreamlike quality, then it is as though the urgency of Amelia's prelude in Act 2 breaks through the stage gauze into reality. From there on the momentum intensifies to the final tragedy. The cast is somewhat flawed but the conducting is remarkable.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> Amazing! I have both Karajan and Boulez and it would seem that Boulez's approach is lighter than Karajan's


Maybe but somehow I still hear Boulez as Mahlerian, as having a convincing take on Mahler. I don't get that with Karajan's 5 and 6 - not yet, at any rate.


----------



## amfortas

DavidA said:


> View attachment 125051
> 
> 
> Karajan's last operatic recording was Verdi's Ballo. It really is quite special in the conducting as the first act seems almost a dreamlike quality, then it is as though the urgency of Amelia's prelude in Act 2 breaks through the stage gauze into reality. From there on the momentum intensifies to the final tragedy. The cast is somewhat flawed but the conducting is remarkable.


You might find the DVD of interest: a lavish, traditional John Schlesinger production, with Solti stepping in for the recently deceased Karajan. I have to admit, though, I find Josephine Barstow so unprepossessing that it detracts significantly from my enjoyment.


----------



## DavidA

amfortas said:


> You might find the DVD of interest: a lavish, traditional John Schlesinger production, with Solti stepping in for the recently deceased Karajan. I have to admit, though, I find Josephine Barstow so unprepossessing that it detracts significantly from my enjoyment.


I remember the occasion - Solti said it was the 'hardest thing he'd ever done' which some tin-eared critics took to mean he thought Karajan's conducting was so bad that he had to revamp the whole thing. In his autobiography, however, Solti says the problem was that he hadn't conducted Ballo on stage for more than 30 years and so to do it at a week's notice with a production he hadn't seen took an enormous effort on his part. It was apparently only at the persuasion of Domingo that he finally stepped in.


----------



## AfterHours

Enthusiast said:


> I've never liked Karajan's Mahler 5 and 6. They seem lightweight in music that is incredibly dramatic


Im not big on Karajan's 6th but Im surprised to hear this sort of criticism of his 5th. His is perhaps the most intense 2nd movement ever. How it all holds together and is still so articulative is rather astonishing to me. Overall, Levine's is my favorite (the tension and phrasing throughout is stunning) but Karajan's isnt far behind (with Stenz, Barshai, Honeck, Mackerras and perhaps Barbirolli and Bernstein all right there as well)


----------



## Rogerx

DavidA said:


> I remember the occasion - Solti said it was the 'hardest thing he'd ever done' which some tin-eared critics took to mean he thought Karajan's conducting was so bad that he had to revamp the whole thing. In his autobiography, however, Solti says the problem was that he hadn't conducted Ballo on stage for more than 30 years and so to do it at a week's notice with a production he hadn't seen took an enormous effort on his part. It was apparently only at the persuasion of Domingo that he finally stepped in.


And he( Solti) did a mighty fine job.


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> And he( Solti) did a mighty fine job.


Haven/t heard that DVD. Have the Solti performance with Price and Pavorotti but the conducting doesn't match Karajan's on that occasion.


----------



## Enthusiast

AfterHours said:


> Im not big on Karajan's 6th but Im surprised to hear this sort of criticism of his 5th. His is perhaps the most intense 2nd movement ever. How it all holds together and is still so articulative is rather astonishing to me. Overall, Levine's is my favorite (the tension and phrasing throughout is stunning) but Karajan's isnt far behind (with Stenz, Barshai, Honeck, Mackerras and perhaps Barbirolli and Bernstein all right there as well)


OK, I'll listen again and report back if I have changed my mind but must say there are a few of your comparison recordings that I also do not greatly care for.


----------



## AfterHours

Enthusiast said:


> OK, I'll listen again and report back if I have changed my mind but must say there are a few of your comparison recordings that I also do not greatly care for.


Regardless, no worries. I am not expecting you to change your mind on the Karajan. It was more that I was surprised the criticism would be about it being "lightweight", a subjective assessment that you're of course welcome to, but just doesn't seem plausible to me when comparing to the performance at hand.

I try to keep a fairly varied selection of top choices for a particular work and don't expect you/anyone to agree with all of them.

Among those, I often have one that is my absolute favorite, that is an extra special/powerful (etc) rendition of that work. It goes without saying that you're not allowed to disagree with those particular selections, lest you risk being wrong   :lol:


----------



## Guest

AfterHours said:


> Im not big on Karajan's 6th but Im surprised to hear this sort of criticism of his 5th. His is perhaps the most intense 2nd movement ever. How it all holds together and is still so articulative is rather astonishing to me. Overall, Levine's is my favorite (the tension and phrasing throughout is stunning) but Karajan's isnt far behind (with Stenz, Barshai, Honeck, Mackerras and perhaps Barbirolli and Bernstein all right there as well)


I think the typical criticism of Karajan's Mahler, particularly the 5th and 6th, is that it comes across more as stereotypical romanticism and doesn't bring out Mahler's unique modern contrapuntal style. I think there is something to that, although I enjoy the recordings nevertheless.


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think the typical criticism of Karajan's Mahler, particularly the 5th and 6th, is that it comes across more as stereotypical romanticism and doesn't bring out Mahler's unique modern contrapuntal style. I think there is something to that, although I enjoy the recordings nevertheless.


I think that is the point - we can enjoy the performances. unlike the people who insist that there is only one way to interpret music, I'm actually glad we can have a variety of interpretations. Variety is the spice of life!


----------



## Enthusiast

AfterHours said:


> Regardless, no worries. I am not expecting you to change your mind on the Karajan. It was more that I was surprised the criticism would be about it being "lightweight", a subjective assessment that you're of course welcome to, but just doesn't seem plausible to me when comparing to the performance at hand.
> 
> I try to keep a fairly varied selection of top choices for a particular work and don't expect you/anyone to agree with all of them.
> 
> Among those, I often have one that is my absolute favorite, that is an extra special/powerful (etc) rendition of that work. It goes without saying that you're not allowed to disagree with those particular selections, lest you risk being wrong   :lol:


OK, I have listened to Karajan's Mahler 5 now and you are sort of right - it is not so bad! Not like his 6th. I don't think it is great but it is more that acceptable and very well played. It is some time since I last listened to it. I did listen to his 6th recently and found I still disliked it and assumed that my opinion on the 5th wouldn't have changed much either. But it is fine. Now I have to listen to Barshai which many rate very highly but which I disliked (a lot) on the only two times I listened to it!

Meanwhile, I have also listened to two Karajan recordings mentioned in this thread that I had not heard before. The Symphonie Fantastique is a good performance, with lots to like in it, but not a great one IMO (and there are quite a few great recordings around). I can't say I was very taken by Karajan's Scheherazade, though.

I also have favourites for many pieces (usually more than one) and don't often change my mind about them. But I do find that I can change my mind about recordings that I didn't like when I first heard them. I suppose I don't listen so much to something that I didn't enjoy the first time.


----------



## Enthusiast

Baron Scarpia said:


> I think the typical criticism of Karajan's Mahler, particularly the 5th and 6th, is that it comes across more as stereotypical romanticism and doesn't bring out Mahler's unique modern contrapuntal style. I think there is something to that, although I enjoy the recordings nevertheless.


I do think Karajan's Mahler 6 is lightweight but (see above) your criticism of his 5 might apply (as mine doesn't!) - certainly, it is not very distinctive - although I would not think there is only one way to play the work.


----------



## 1996D

This thread is beating a dead horse, Karajan is second to none, he's the Coca Cola of conductors and that's all a conductor needs to be, because the art and genius--the very essence--is brought by the composer--it is already in the music. 

If we're being democratical just go to Asia where they have no bias, and you'll see how much they love him. People that dislike him do so because of politics: because he portrayed perfection and order. When he's surpassed it's because another great conductor put in the time with a piece that Karajan didn't have. 

His Schumann comes to mind, which isn't as good as Bernstein's, the latter being the only one that puts up a fight piece by piece.

But as a whole he's as consistent and dominant as Coca Cola, across the board. To a point where if someone is new to classical musical, rather than recommend him a composer, recommend him Karajan, and that'll make it much easier on him.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1996D said:


> This thread is beating a dead horse, Karajan is second to none, he's the Coca Cola of conductors and that's all a conductor needs to be, because the art and genius--the very essence--is brought by the composer--it is already in the music.
> 
> If we're being democratical just go to Asia where they have no bias, and you'll see how much they love him. People that dislike him do so because of politics: because he portrayed perfection and order. When he's surpassed it's because another great conductor put in the time with a piece that Karajan didn't have.
> 
> His Schumann comes to mind, which isn't as good as Bernstein's, the latter being the only one that puts up a fight piece by piece.
> 
> But as a whole he's as consistent and dominant as Coca Cola, across the board. To a point where if someone is new to classical musical, rather than recommend him a composer, recommend him Karajan, and that'll make it much easier on him.


I'm assuming this is a parody?


----------



## Phil in Magnolia

Zhdanov said:


> Beethoven 9th live in Berlin philarmonie 1963 recording - one of the best ever and must be his best.


Interesting - I have not heard of this recording or performance before. Karajan recorded the 9th again with the BPO, just a year after he had recorded it with them (usually referred to as his 1963 cycle, but recorded in 1961/1962)?

The recording does not seem to be commercially available that I can find - it is not listed on the DG website and I find very few mentions of it online. It was the first performance at the new Berlin Philharmonie, so it would seem that DG would occasionally include it with one of their ubiquitous Karajan collections, but that doesn't seem to be the case?


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> This thread is beating a dead horse, Karajan is second to none, he's the Coca Cola of conductors and that's all a conductor needs to be, because the art and genius.....


Nonsense, HvK is second to everyone. His insistence on "one sound fits all" music becomes quickly tedious, and monotonous [monotone-ous]. not all music should sound round, smooth and "beautiful" 


> If we're being democratical just go to Asia where they have no bias, and you'll see how much they love him.


??? Why would we ever accept some fictitious "Asian" preference as a standard??


> People that dislike him do because of politics.


baloney....my lack of enthusiasm for vK has virtually nothing to do with politics...it has to do with musical performance.


> To a point where if someone is new to classical musical, rather than recommend him a composer, recommend him Karajan, and that'll make it much easier on him.


oh brother!! there are so many finer conductors, so much great music, why would one want to limit one's self to such a degree??


----------



## Phil loves classical

Whenever Karajan is up against Barbirolli, who I feel is somewhat similar in string sound, I find Barbirolli wins it for me, like in Mahler, Sibelius, Strauss.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Heck148 said:


> Nonsense, HvK is second to everyone. His insistence on "one sound fits all" music becomes quickly tedious, and monotonous [monotone-ous]. not all music should sound round, smooth and "beautiful"
> 
> ??? Why would we ever accept some fictitious "Asian" preference as a standard??
> 
> baloney....my lack of enthusiasm for vK has virtually nothing to do with politics...it has to do with musical performance.
> 
> oh brother!! there are so many finer conductors, so much great music, why would one want to limit one's self to such a degree??


I think "Second to everyone" is probably as silly a claim as "Second to none."

Karajan has few peers when it comes to Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and R. Strauss; some peers when it comes to Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Schumann; and is outclassed by many conductors in Bach, Berlioz, Haydn, and Mahler.

All conductors have their strengths and weaknesses, including Karajan. But to claim that somehow hundreds of millions of listeners over forty years were deluded by slick production values and advertising is just bosh.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think "Second to everyone" is probably as silly a claim as "Second to none."
> 
> Karajan has few peers when it comes to Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and R. Strauss; some peers when it comes to Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Schumann; and is outclassed by many conductors in Bach, Berlioz, Haydn, and Mahler.
> 
> All conductors have their strengths and weaknesses, including Karajan. But to claim that somehow hundreds of millions of listeners over forty years were deluded by slick production values and advertising is just bosh.


That particular gentleman churns out his standard criticism of Karajan as 'second to everyone'. That is why 'everyone' appeared to buy his recordings. It really is hilarious! :lol:


----------



## Heck148

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think "Second to everyone" is probably as silly a claim as "Second to none."


not for me, HvK is not my first choice for any composer I can think of....



> Karajan has few peers when it comes to Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and R. Strauss;


Many conductors do a far more satisfying job with these composers



> ...to claim that somehow hundreds of millions of listeners over forty years were deluded by slick production values and advertising is just bosh.


Karajan's productions are always slick, smooth, sound "beautiful", heavily processed....and many people find this attractive. but the slick, smooth, round, "beautiful" approach does not apply to all music, or to all parts of music...there are far more interesting conductors to explore.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> That particular gentleman churns out his standard criticism of Karajan as 'second to everyone'. That is why 'everyone' appeared to buy his recordings. It really is hilarious! :lol:


no doubt, many people are attracted to Karajan's slick, smooth, round approach....and his recordings always "sound" good as far as recording and processing. there are just so many better versions available as far as musical interest, interpretation and imaginative presentation...
I was taking issue with the silly comment that HvK was "second to none", and that newcomers to music should just forgo any exploration, and just bathe themselves in Karajan's overly processed, suppressed packaging and "one sound fits all" monotony...


----------



## fluteman

OK, I'll play this game. One of his best:









One of his worst, imo (over manipulated and mannered as much of his work became in the later years):


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think "Second to everyone" is probably as silly a claim as "Second to none."
> 
> Karajan has few peers when it comes to Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, and R. Strauss; some peers when it comes to Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Schubert, and Schumann; and is outclassed by many conductors in Bach, Berlioz, Haydn, and Mahler.
> 
> All conductors have their strengths and weaknesses, including Karajan. But to claim that somehow hundreds of millions of listeners over forty years were deluded by slick production values and advertising is just bosh.


I agree with this. Most of the conductors I rank above Karajan were pre-stereo. I recommend many Karajan recordings to people as first introductions to works so they can hear them in good sound with reliable interpretations. As I've said before, Karajan was invaluable in carrying the legacy of the great German conducting tradition far into the stereo era. He was really the last of them. Some demean this tradition as being heavy, ponderous, and inarticulate. I think these criticisms show a blindness to the emotion and beauty beneath the notes and rhythms, the overarching message.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I agree with this. Most of the conductors I rank above Karajan were pre-stereo. I recommend many Karajan recordings to people as first introductions to works so they can hear them in good sound with reliable interpretations. As I've said before, Karajan was invaluable in carrying the legacy of the great German conducting tradition far into the stereo era. He was really the last of them. *Some demean this tradition as being heavy, ponderous, and inarticulate*. I think these criticisms show a blindness to the emotion and beauty beneath the notes and rhythms, the overarching message.


It's interesting that when Karajan's recordings first appeared many of them were looked upon as pretty fleet footed compared with the competition - more in the Toscanini tradition.


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> One of his worst, imo (over manipulated and mannered as much of his work became in the later years):
> 
> View attachment 125282


Some of Karajan's recordings were to please the accountants at DG. He probably wasn't best suited for this repertoire.


----------



## annaw

...............


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Some of Karajan's recordings were to please the accountants at DG. He probably wasn't best suited for this repertoire.


Couldn't disagree more. I enjoy that recording of Pini di Roma a lot, and it was not the first time Karajan recorded the piece. His Philharmonia recording is also brilliant, in a different way.

Sure, all those Karajan recordings of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and Pachelbel's Canon were financially motivated. I can't imagine the Respighi is a huge cash cow.


----------



## fluteman

DavidA said:


> Some of Karajan's recordings were to please the accountants at DG. He probably wasn't best suited for this repertoire.


Yes, and not only DG. I've read that when Walter Legge hired him to record for EMI after the war, he did whatever Legge wanted, with no regard to what he was "suited" for. In general, you can't blame Karajan for putting a high priority on commercial / financial success, prestige and celebrity. He was certainly starting at rock bottom after the war. He didn't come from a wealthy family like Beecham or have a wealthy wife like Koussevitsky or Toscanini. So I'm not really Karajan-bashing. I was just trying to be a good sport and play along with this game.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Baron Scarpia said:


> Couldn't disagree more. I enjoy that recording of Pini di Roma a lot, and it was not the first time Karajan recorded the piece. His Philharmonia recording is also brilliant, in a different way.


I like everything on this record except for the bird sounds.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> It's interesting that when Karajan's recordings first appeared many of them were looked upon as pretty fleet footed compared with the competition - more in the Toscanini tradition.


They were no more fleet-footed than the earliest recordings we have of Furtwangler and Klemperer. Most conductors slowed down tempos as they aged. The basic tradition was the same, however. More emphasis on a homogeneous sound and interpretation. Less emphasis on clarity and articulation. It's basically European orchestral tradition (epitomized by Furtwangler/Klemperer) vs American tradition (epitomized by Toscanini/Reiner).


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> They were no more fleet-footed than the earliest recordings we have of Furtwangler and Klemperer. Most conductors slowed down tempos as they aged. The basic tradition was the same, however. More emphasis on a homogeneous sound and interpretation. Less emphasis on clarity and articulation. It's basically European orchestral tradition (epitomized by Furtwangler/Klemperer) vs American tradition (epitomized by Toscanini/Reiner).


Karajan was certainly more fleetfooted than Furtwängler or Klemperer, although they did slow down later in life. HvK was more influenced by Toscanini .


----------



## 1996D

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm assuming this is a parody?


Of course not. It's ironic how Karajan is viewed as having a large ego and is accused of vanity when he is always faithful to the composer and is simply a presenter of consistent quality, always keeping the musicians straight, to ensure an orderly performance.

Other conductors show their pride by putting too much of themselves in the interpretation rather than displaying the composer. Karajan always presents music as it's meant to be presented--with order, and the best sound every instrument can make--and lets the work of the composer shine.

In that way he is the most humble of conductors and this makes him the best. I agree he's overrated by some because they mistake the composer's genius for his own, but they simply misunderstand the relationship between composer and performer. As conductors go, he is the best.


----------



## 1996D

Another point to be made is that all great composers are grandiose in their character: they are meant to be played as Karajan plays them. Other conductors reduce the aggressiveness in their music without even knowing it.

If that is your preference then perhaps you're not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^

I thought your post was a parody because I couldn’t believe someone would present his own subjective tastes and preferences as indisputable fact and proof of superiority over others. Apparently I was wrong. Quite frankly I think your posts do Karajan a disservice.


----------



## 1996D

@Brahsianhorn Hopefully. As good as he was he made the position of conductor appealing to the prideful lot that would follow him. Today it's hard to find one that doesn't spoil the music with his own arrogance.

The position of conductor must be a humble one, just as it began.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1996D said:


> Another point to be made is that all great composers are grandiose in their character: they are meant to be played as Karajan plays them. Other conductors reduce the aggressiveness in their music without even knowing it.
> 
> If that is your preference then perhaps you're not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might.


What do you say to those who perceive Karajan as softening the edges in Beethoven and thereby reducing the rough, aggressive nature of his music? Are these people "not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might?"


----------



## Guest

fluteman said:


> Yes, and not only DG. I've read that when Walter Legge hired him to record for EMI after the war, he did whatever Legge wanted, with no regard to what he was "suited" for. In general, you can't blame Karajan for putting a high priority on commercial / financial success, prestige and celebrity. He was certainly starting at rock bottom after the war. He didn't come from a wealthy family like Beecham or have a wealthy wife like Koussevitsky or Toscanini. So I'm not really Karajan-bashing. I was just trying to be a good sport and play along with this game.


I don't see a huge amount of EMI/Philharmonia repertoire that Karajan wasn't "suited" for. Mostly he recorded things he subsequently became associated with, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Sibelius, Mozart, Bartok, Dvorak, etc. There were some red herrings, such as the Stravinsky Jeu d'Carte, the Roussel Symphony No 4, maybe you could argue the Respighi. Maybe those were concession to Legge. Mostly it seems to have been music he connected with.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Of course not. It's ironic how Karajan is viewed as having a large ego and is accused of vanity when he is always faithful to the composer and is simply a presenter of consistent quality, always keeping the musicians straight, to ensure an orderly performance.
> 
> Other conductors show their pride by putting too much of themselves in the interpretation rather than displaying the composer. Karajan always presents music as it's meant to be presented--with order, and the best sound every instrument can make--and lets the work of the composer shine.
> 
> In that way he is the most humble of conductors and this makes him the best. I agree he's overrated by some because they mistake the composer's genius for his own, but they simply misunderstand the relationship between composer and performer. As conductors go, he is the best.


I like a lot of Karajan's recordings, but I don't see him as a purist, and one bound strictly to the composers intention. I don't see him as particularly glorifying himself either. He was a conductor who viewed himself as a guardian of the German tradition of music making, and who arrived at his own idea of the _true _nature of a piece and performed it according to that vision. Sometimes the that involved less than strict adherence to the performance tradition to or the score.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I just want an answer to this laughable notion that Karajan, and Karajan ALONE amongst conductors, humbled himself before the composer’s intentions. How does prioritizing beauty of sound above everything else - regardless of whether it suits the composer - equal humbling one’s self before the composer? Would Stravinsky agree with this assessment of Karajan?

Whether meant as a parody or not, this argument is rubbish. Every conductor had his own individual stamp, Karajan and Toscanini included, and those who do not make the music dull and forgettable, thus doing the composer an even greater disservice.

The job of every conductor is to figure out what makes a particular work great, internalize it, and then communicate this knowledge to his audience. This is an inherently subjective, individual process, for we all perceive things differently.


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I just want an answer to this laughable notion that Karajan, and Karajan ALONE amongst conductors, humbled himself before the composer's intentions. *How does prioritizing beauty of sound above everything else - regardless of whether it suits the composer - equal humbling one's self before the composer?* Would Stravinsky agree with this assessment of Karajan?
> 
> Whether meant as a parody or not, this argument is rubbish. Every conductor had his own individual stamp, Karajan and Toscanini included, and those who do not make the music dull and forgettable, thus doing the composer an even greater disservice.
> 
> The job of every conductor is to figure out what makes a particular work great, internalize it, and then communicate this knowledge to his audience. This is an inherently subjective, individual process, for we all perceive things differently.


I generally agree, but I think it is an oversimplification to say the Karajan prioritized beauty of sound _above all else_. He did not cultivate a uniform, pretty "sound." His thing was control of sound. A great range of sound, from the gentle to the menacing, could be achieved without uglyness. What impresses me was the level of control, the ability to create a pianissimo that sounded menacing, to a fortissimo that was as soft as a feather pillow.


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> Of course not. It's ironic how Karajan is viewed as having a large ego and is accused of vanity


He did have a huge ego [all conductors are egotists,] HvK was an extreme case. He conducted with his eyes closed frequently, so wrapped up in his own ego trip he doesn't even grant the courtesy and recognition of eye contact with his orchestra soloists. that has a very stifling effect on musicians...



> when he is always faithful to the composer


no, he was faithful to his concept of everything sounding smooth, round, legato,"beautiful"



> is simply a presenter of consistent quality


 monotony, you mean, 


> always keeping the musicians straight,


 suppressed, you mean


> to ensure an orderly performance.


 a stifled, highly polished, heavily processed recreation, you mean.



> Karajan always presents music as it's meant to be presented--with order, and the best sound every instrument can make--and lets the work of the composer shine.


negative - the expressive range of the instruments is so severely limited, the performances so tightly controlled, that the music sounds restricted, stifled, straining to burst forth....
Other conductors will _drive_ the orchestra, will push - very soft, very loud - very fast, very slow, and they will maintain great rhythmic control and will demand expressive playing from their musicians....HvK not in the running in this regard.



> I agree he's overrated by some because they mistake the composer's genius for his own, but they simply misunderstand the relationship between composer and performer. As conductors go, he is the best.


he is over-rated - long-time critic Bernie Jacobson - called him an "over-rated dullard"...maybe that's a little strong. but it's not so far off....humility is about the last quality I'd attribute to HvK...


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> Another point to be made is that all great composers are grandiose in their character: they are meant to be played as Karajan plays them. Other conductors reduce the aggressiveness in their music without even knowing it.


nonsense...other conductors "reduce the aggressiveness"??:lol:
Have you listened to any Mravinsky?? Solti?? Toscanini?? Reiner?? HvK always comes off, to me, sounding like a soft fluffy marshmallow when compared with these drivers....
I want the music in its fullest, expressive light - sometimes it is gentle, lovely, beautiful, sometimes it is sardonic. funny, sarcastic, sometimes it is loud, rough and nasty as hell...I want it all, not just the soft marshmallow-y stuff.


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> The position of conductor must be a humble one, just as it began.


Wow....:lol: humility is NOT a quality one associates with conductors - even the more mellow ones - Walter, Monteux, Munch, etc were still very strong egotists with towering personalities


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What do you say to those who perceive Karajan as softening the edges in Beethoven and thereby reducing the rough, aggressive nature of his music? Are these people "not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might?"


good question, BH.....


----------



## Heck148

Baron Scarpia said:


> I generally agree, but I think it is an oversimplification to say the Karajan prioritized beauty of sound _above all else_. He did not cultivate a uniform, pretty "sound." His thing was control of sound. A great range of sound, from the gentle to the menacing, could be achieved without uglyness.


HvK wanted everything to be pretty, round, smooth, no ugly or nasty sounds.
but sometimes music should be ugly!! just one quick example - The "Stupid March" of Fascism in Honegger Sym #3/III is not supposed to be "nice" - it is ugly, and should be played brutally and nastily - [try Mravinsky/LenPO]. Shostakovich, Prokofieff demand a huge range of tonal palette...making everything smooth and pretty simply does cut it....



> What impresses me was the level of control, the ability to create a pianissimo that sounded menacing, to a fortissimo that was as soft as a feather pillow.


I believe that a large amount of control room processing is a factor - we'll probably never know - recording engineers and producers are not generally forthcoming with their trade secrets - but my ears tell me that we get a lot of "control room" crescendi, and fortissimos with HvK recordings....he did not want any ugly or forced sounds....


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Heck148 said:


> I believe that a large amount of control room processing is a factor - we'll probably never know - recording engineers and producers are not generally forthcoming with their trade secrets - but my ears tell me that we get a lot of "control room" crescendi, and fortissimos with HvK recordings....he did not want any ugly or forced sounds....


FWIW, I have read that in concert, the BPO had extraordinary dynamic range, and that Karajan excelled in pianissimi. Live recordings I've viewed bear this out. I have never personally seen them live, of course.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What do you say to those who perceive Karajan as softening the edges in Beethoven and thereby reducing the rough, aggressive nature of his music? Are these people "not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might?"


I have listened to a good dozen recorded Beethoven cycles now (Karajan x4, Toscanini, Hogwood, Gardiner, Bernstein, Wyn Morris, Chailly, Barenboim, as well as many individual symphonies by Kleiber, Furtwangler, Bohm, Szell) and I am in the midst of Muti/CSO live in Chicago.

The notion that Karajan softened all the edges to a dull, lifeless beauty is not well-founded, in my opinion. His tempii are in the top third of this group and the strings frequently attack brisk passages with gusto. Just because his treatment of adagio passages is full of legato (and, some would argue, myself included, "beauty") does not mean that his treatment of allegro and scherzo movements is the same. I defy anyone to listen to, say, the fifth, 6.4, 3.1, 7.4, 9.2 or 1.1 and call them "softened" or "reduced." And just because the BPO doesn't squeak along at break-neck pace on period instruments doesn't mean it can't play with fire.


----------



## KenOC

It’s unfortunate that some people, enthusiasts for a certain conductor, feel the need to denigrate other conductors. Let’s face it: They’re all professionals, and they all have their ideas on how the music should “go”. And (I assume) most of them have the chops to make it go that way.

Maybe we should stick with picking our favorites and grant the others a bit of respect for their own aesthetic choices.


----------



## Rogerx

KenOC said:


> It's unfortunate that some people, enthusiasts for a certain conductor, feel the need to denigrate other conductors. Let's face it: They're all professionals, and they all have their ideas on how the music should "go". And (I assume) most of them have the chops to make it go that way.
> 
> Maybe we should stick with picking our favorites and grant the others a bit of respect for their own aesthetic choices.


You should see the opera forum and replace singer for conductor.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Hear, hear, KenOC. 

I should say, I quite like Gardiner's Beethoven. It's a refreshing change of pace and very well played by the ORR.

The comparison of Karajan to Toscanini is very apt. Karajan idolized Toscanini and once rode on a bicycle for twenty miles or some such (this is a young, poor HvK obviously) to sit in the cheap seats.


----------



## KenOC

MatthewWeflen said:


> I should say, I quite like Gardiner's Beethoven. It's a refreshing change of pace and very well played by the ORR.


Gardiner's Beethoven cycle has been my go-to for quite a few years!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Getting back to the "game" so to speak, I would nominate this later digital recording for the "Bests":









This live recording is stupendously played by Mutter, and the VPO is perfectly modulated to accompany her.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> What do you say to those who perceive Karajan as softening the edges in Beethoven and thereby reducing the rough, aggressive nature of his music? Are these people "not meant to enjoy the genius of a composer in its full might?"


This was a charge that certain critics made as they accused Toscanini of playing it too fast at the time. If you meant each note played well, in time, together, as written, then yes. Beauty of sound was one of Karajan's priorities of course. There are other ways of doing Beethoven. Anyone who heard the mighty BPO and does not agree that Beethoven is played in its full might needs a hearing test! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> It's unfortunate that some people, enthusiasts for a certain conductor, feel the need to denigrate other conductors. Let's face it: They're all professionals, and they all have their ideas on how the music should "go". And (I assume) most of them have the chops to make it go that way.
> 
> Maybe we should stick with picking our favorites and grant the others a bit of respect for their own aesthetic choices.


Agree totally. There are many ways of presenting the great composers. Wouldn't it be dull if everyone did it the same like some critics appear to want?


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> Hear, hear, KenOC.
> 
> I should say, I quite like Gardiner's Beethoven. It's a refreshing change of pace and very well played by the ORR.
> 
> The comparison of Karajan to Toscanini is very apt. Karajan idolized Toscanini and *once rode on a bicycle for twenty miles or some such (this is a young, poor HvK obviously)* to sit in the cheap seats.


In his pomp Karajan conducted a European youth orchestra at Saltzberg Festival. To rehearse he went to where the young people were taking part in a summer school and stayed with them at the school, talked with them about their futures and rehearsed with them. Apparently he showed a real interest in them and their futures as musicians. In doing so he charged no fee and paid all his own expenses. Obviously he could afford to do so but many other conductors were put out of court for the young people because of the fees they charged. The only 'Karajanism' at this time occurred when HvK rang the local airport where the school was to see if the runway could be extended to accommodate his personal jet! When he learned this was not possible he hired a smaller one for the journey! A many sided man!


----------



## DavidA

fluteman said:


> Yes, and not only DG. I've read that when Walter Legge hired him to record for EMI after the war, he did whatever Legge wanted, with no regard to what he was "suited" for. In general, you can't blame Karajan for putting a high priority on commercial / financial success, prestige and celebrity. He was certainly starting at rock bottom after the war. He didn't come from a wealthy family like Beecham or have a wealthy wife like Koussevitsky or Toscanini. So I'm not really Karajan-bashing. I was just trying to be a good sport and play along with this game.


I think to say that he did whatever Legge wanted him to do is perhaps an overstatement but Legge brought HVK to England to conduct the new Philharmonia and make it into the recording orchestra he wanted . Legge had the reputation of being a very unpleasant gentleman but there is no doubt he was a genius as far as recording was concerned and was no fool in his judgement of conductors. As said, Karajan was starting from rock bottom And everything he did and achieved was on merit. I know the British were quite astonished and his early recordings with the Philharmonia. Karajan was a meritocratic - he was obsessed with power and didn't handle it as well as he might sometimes but he did get there on merit, Much to the annoyance of many critics who scorn success


----------



## Itullian

DavidA said:


> Agree totally. There are many ways of presenting the great composers. Wouldn't it be dull if everyone did it the same like some critics appear to want?


Even Klemperer and Celibidache ?


----------



## DavidA

Itullian said:


> Even Klemperer and Celibidache ?


Well there are limits! :lol:

I have Klemperer's Beethoven. It is too slow but there are many good things about it. Karajan Once went to his dressing room after a performance of the third symphony and told him , "If I ever conduct the funeral march as well as you did tonight, I will die a happy man !"


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> The notion that Karajan softened all the edges to a dull, lifeless beauty is not well-founded, in my opinion.


Keep in mind I was responding to the poster's extreme position that Karajan perfectly did everything exactly the way the composer wanted without any of his own input. I did not say Karajan created a "dull, lifeless beauty," it is just that compared to many others he prioritized beauty of sound more and somewhat softened edges on accented chords so as not to sound "ugly." There was a certain manicured, controlled perfection to his style, which of course is not necessarily always a bad thing. The point is that it was an individual style that he brought, and one may like it or one may not. There were times when Karajan "let his hair down" and conducted with a bit more abandon, particularly in live performances like the 1982 Mahler 9th which is one of the best ever recorded.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Keep in mind I was responding to the poster's extreme position that Karajan perfectly did everything exactly the way the composer wanted without any of his own input. I did not say Karajan created a "dull, lifeless beauty," it is just that compared to many others he prioritized beauty of sound more and somewhat softened edges on accented chords so as not to sound "ugly." There was a certain manicured, controlled perfection to his style, which of course is not necessarily always a bad thing. The point is that it was an individual style that he brought, and one may like it or one may not. There were times when Karajan "let his hair down" and conducted with a bit more abandon, particularly in live performances like the 1982 Mahler 9th which is one of the best ever recorded.


If I had been quoting you, I would have used quotation marks, as I did with "softened" and "reduced." :tiphat: I did not take your post as necessarily reflecting your own feelings. I was just responding to the common canard that Karajan homogenizes everything.

The 1962 Karajan/VPO Mars movement from Holst's Planets is definitely frenetic, "let his hair down" apocalyptic fury.


----------



## Heck148

MatthewWeflen said:


> FWIW, I have read that in concert, the BPO had extraordinary dynamic range, and that Karajan excelled in pianissimi. Live recordings I've viewed bear this out. I have never personally seen them live, of course.


I heard them live, many years back - very good, but nothing extraordinary about the dynamics...HvK did not want the bright, brassy, brilliant sound that comes when players are applying maximum pressure and airspeed...


----------



## Heck148

MatthewWeflen said:


> The notion that Karajan softened all the edges to a dull, lifeless beauty is not well-founded, in my opinion.......listen to, say, the fifth, 6.4, 3.1, 7.4, 9.2 or 1.1 and call them "softened" or "reduced."


the use of legato, smoother articulations is undeniable - HvK preferred this style of articulation - ie

the main motif of LvB Sym #5/I - Ta-Ta-Ta- TAAAH!!
for Karajan - it sounds La-La-La-LAAH - a softer tongue, softer bow stroke....that's how he wanted it....it's ok, until the development, when these motifs are stacked up one on another, in descending fashion - the soft articulations are too long, the texture gets mushy, not well-defined, and almost sounds late...
Conductors like Toscanini, Szell, Reiner use the harder, more definite "Ta" stroke which maintains a clarity, and also allows the tempo to move ahead vigorously....
Same with the opening of movement IV of same work - 
Toscanini, Reiner - PAH-PAH-PAH on the C major triad - _marcato sostenuto con forza_....
HvK - LAH-LAH-LAH....he wants the softer, smoother articulation.

some prefer this, which is fine...but the point that Karajan preferred a smoother, rounder sound is valid, imo....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> the use of legato, smoother articulations is undeniable - HvK preferred this style of articulation - ie
> 
> the main motif of LvB Sym #5/I - Ta-Ta-Ta- TAAAH!!
> for Karajan - it sounds La-La-La-LAAH - a softer tongue, softer bow stroke....that's how he wanted it....it's ok, until the development, when these motifs are stacked up one on another, in descending fashion - the soft articulations are too long, the texture gets mushy, not well-defined, and almost sounds late...
> Conductors like Toscanini, Szell, Reiner use the harder, more definite "Ta" stroke which maintains a clarity, and also allows the tempo to move ahead vigorously....
> Same with the opening of movement IV of same work -
> Toscanini, Reiner - PAH-PAH-PAH on the C major triad - _marcato sostenuto con forza_....
> HvK - LAH-LAH-LAH....he wants the softer, smoother articulation.
> 
> some prefer this, which is fine...but the point that Karajan preferred a smoother, rounder sound is valid, imo....


Well now we are getting into the classic European vs American orchestral approach. The American style prefers sharper definition, whereas the European favors greater ambiguity and mystery. I favor the European approach for composers in the German Romantic tradition. The American approach is too naked, too obvious, too simple...


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well now we are getting into the classic European vs American orchestral approach. The American style prefers sharper definition, whereas the European favors greater ambiguity and mystery. I favor the European approach for composers in the German Romantic tradition. The American approach is too naked, too obvious, too simple...


Yes, Solti and VPO nearly waged war over it!! I actually prefer both, depending upon the musical demands...sometimes, precision and impact require a hard articulation, strong accent...sometimes, a softer more covered approach is necessary...
orchestras should be able to do both..


----------



## 1996D

Karajan puts it all together. He plays only the best music; his recordings are technologically modern; he's extremely consistent; he focuses on beauty; he understands counterpoint; he has the aggressiveness; he has the sensitivity.

Bernstein, Abbado, and Kleiber also have many of the talents, but the first lacks order, the second aggressiveness and at moments passion, and the third a bigger repertoire--they have select pieces and moments in which they are the best. All the Furtwangler and Toscanini lovers forget that their recordings were not made with modern equipment and are not really as enjoyable.

Again, as a whole, if there is a conductor to recommend to promote our art, it's Karajan.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1996D said:


> All the Furtwangler and Toscanini lovers forget that their recordings were not made with modern equipment and are not really as enjoyable.


Wow, I totally forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. Now I can stop listening to their recordings and listen exclusively to the one and only true god of conductors for the rest of my life.

(Again, please tell me this is all a parody)


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Karajan puts it all together. He plays only the best music; his recordings are technologically modern; he's extremely consistent; he focuses on beauty; he understands counterpoint; he has the aggressiveness; he has the sensitivity.
> 
> Bernstein, Abbado, and Kleiber also have many of the talents, but the first lacks order, the second aggressiveness and at moments passion, and the third a bigger repertoire--they have select pieces and moments in which they are the best. *All the Furtwangler and Toscanini lovers forget that their recordings were not made with modern equipment and are not really as enjoyable.*
> 
> Again, as a whole, if there is a conductor to recommend to promote our art, it's Karajan.


As music depends on sound, The old recordings are handicapped. I must confess it's a trial listening to Toscanini recorded in the notorious studio 8H however brilliant his readings


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> As music depends on sound, The old recordings are handicapped. I must confess it's a trial listening to Toscanini recorded in the notorious studio 8H however brilliant his readings


Once I hear a truly great recording, like the Casals Bach cello suites, Horowitz Rach 3rd with Barbirolli, or wartime Beethoven Coriolan with Furtwängler, I cannot go back. The bar has been set, and no recording can provide me the same emotional pleasure no matter how good the recording quality. That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate good sound for its own sake. It's just a question of degree. I have numerous recordings of my favorite works, but for the proverbial desert island I reach for the great artists of the pre-stereo era. This list seldom includes Karajan, who for me merely provides serviceable performances whose main attraction is the sound quality. Exceptions include his excellent live Mahler 9th and Bruckner 8th.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

I will admit, sound quality is a prerequisite for me. I listen over headphones and really prize clarity and dynamic range in a recording. I find it very difficult to listen to pre-1950 recordings because of the tape hiss, crackling, or worse. 

As such, Karajan is a baseline for me, and then I seek out other alternatives if the recording is not convincing. So far, the alternatives I've sought out are mostly in the Baroque sphere (I adore Trevor Pinnock's renditions of Bach and Vivaldi, for instance), as well as Mozart, Mahler and Haydn. 

I do however buy Beethoven and Sibelius cycles even though I find Karajan's totally convincing. The music is more than rich enough, and I enjoy what even more modern recording techniques can reveal (e.g. Gardiner's 1994 Beethoven, and a lot of lovely LSO recordings such as Colin Davis' Sibelius and Nielsen)

The one that really grates for me is Toscanini. Every time I listen to one of his Beethoven recordings, I love the interpretation, but it's like there is a curtain between me and completely losing myself in the work.


----------



## Byron

When I first started collecting and listening to classical music, sound quality was the priority for me as well. Over the years that's changed, and although obviously hearing a captivating performance in state of the art sound is the ideal, I'm much more willing to put up with poor recording quality to hear something extraordinary. Once I'm focused on and immersed in the music the extraneous noise is not even something I'm actively aware of anymore.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Byron said:


> When I first started collecting and listening to classical music, sound quality was the priority for me as well. Over the years that's changed, and although obviously hearing a captivating performance in state of the art sound is the ideal, I'm much more willing to put up with poor recording quality to hear something extraordinary. Once I'm focused on and immersed in the music the extraneous noise is not even something I'm actively aware of anymore.


Same for me. I originally needed everything in DDD, not ADD. Any amount of hiss bothered me. But later on I realized this was simply an artificial prerequisite in my mind. When I "released" myself from this prerequisite, I opened up to a whole new world of great artistry, where passion, risk-taking, and emotional immersion came first as opposed to clinical "perfection."


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Same for me. I originally needed everything in DDD, not ADD. Any amount of hiss bothered me. But later on I realized this was simply an artificial prerequisite in my mind. When I "released" myself from this prerequisite, I opened up to a whole new world of great artistry, where passion, risk-taking, and emotional immersion came first as opposed to clinical "perfection."


Many of my desert-island favorites are ADD, especially ADD recordings of the 1970s. For my money, DDD is only a selling point post 2000.


----------



## 1996D

Byron said:


> When I first started collecting and listening to classical music, sound quality was the priority for me as well. Over the years that's changed, and although obviously hearing a captivating performance in state of the art sound is the ideal, I'm much more willing to put up with poor recording quality to hear something extraordinary. Once I'm focused on and immersed in the music the extraneous noise is not even something I'm actively aware of anymore.


Yet the best Horowitz is when the sound quality is good. He's by a large margin the best pianist recorded and even his genius suffers when the distortion is louder than the music.

I agree that there are old gems here and there, but my argument is for consistency, and why this thread is almost redundant. Very very few Karajan recordings are underwhelming--he is the bar to compare all others to.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Once I hear a truly great recording, like the Casals Bach cello suites, Horowitz Rach 3rd with Barbirolli, or wartime Beethoven Coriolan with Furtwängler, I cannot go back. The bar has been set, and no recording can provide me the same emotional pleasure no matter how good the recording quality. That doesn't mean I cannot appreciate good sound for its own sake. It's just a question of degree. I have numerous recordings of my favorite works, but for the proverbial desert island I reach for the great artists of the pre-stereo era. This list seldom includes Karajan, who for me merely provides serviceable performances whose main attraction is the sound quality. Exceptions include his excellent live Mahler 9th and Bruckner 8th.


 I'm really glad that I can enjoy a wide variety of performances because for me variety is the spice of life. Yes I've got the Rach 3 by Horowitz but the sound is absolutely awful and the virtuosity displayed by Argerich matches it and in much better sound. There are numerous other terrific performances of the Rachmaninov third not to mention the composer's own! He was a pretty good pianist too! I think there is a lot of romantic stuff about performances of the pre-stereo era and no doubt there are some good ones but there are also some really good ones and great ones of the post-stereo era Which we can enjoy and much better sound. Karajan's performances go beyond the serviceable - The best of them are very great performances indeed


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, I totally forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me. Now I can stop listening to their recordings and listen exclusively to the one and only true god of conductors for the rest of my life.
> 
> (Again, please tell me this is all a parody)


Really, this has got to be a put-on...Why would any serious music lover/listening fan impose such restrictions on their musical enjoyment?? unbelievable....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn posted


> I have numerous recordings of my favorite works, but for the proverbial desert island I reach for the great artists of the pre-stereo era. This list seldom includes Karajan, who for me merely provides serviceable performances whose main attraction is the sound quality.


and there are many, many great recordings with excellent sound quality that far surpass the "serviceable" HvK versions, which are, indeed, well engineered, despite a musical "sameness".


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> .....my argument is for consistency, and why this thread is almost redundant. Very very few Karajan recordings are underwhelming--he is the bar to compare all others to.


Many, many Karajan recordings are underwhelming....the guy just won't put the pedal to the metal...always the restraint, the brakes on, the throttle held at 80-85%...he is consistent - everything smooth, legato, round, pretty....for musical consistency, one should go to podium greats like Monteux or Reiner....they always make musical sense, whatever the repertoire...remarkable flexibility and musicianship....they always get it right..


----------



## Guest

Heck148 said:


> HvK wanted everything to be pretty, round, smooth, no ugly or nasty sounds.
> but sometimes music should be ugly!! just one quick example - The "Stupid March" of Fascism in Honegger Sym #3/III is not supposed to be "nice" - it is ugly, and should be played brutally and nastily - [try Mravinsky/LenPO]. Shostakovich, Prokofieff demand a huge range of tonal palette...making everything smooth and pretty simply does cut it....
> ...
> I believe that a large amount of control room processing is a factor - we'll probably never know - recording engineers and producers are not generally forthcoming with their trade secrets - but my ears tell me that we get a lot of "control room" crescendi, and fortissimos with HvK recordings....he did not want any ugly or forced sounds....


I heard Karajan conduct Bruckner 8 at Carnegie Hall. When the first movement coda began it was although Karajan had opened the very gates of hell. Later, the ecstatic ascending chords of the second movement were performed with indescribable beauty, and with surprising power. Every moment of that work was vividly performed; I never heard music making of such intensity, before or since. It was not all "pretty, round and smooth."


----------



## DavidA

Baron Scarpia said:


> I heard Karajan conduct Bruckner 8 at Carnegie Hall. When the first movement coda began it was although Karajan had opened the very gates of hell. Later, the ecstatic ascending chords of the second movement were performed with indescribable beauty, and with surprising power. Every moment of that work was vividly performed; I never heard music making of such intensity, before or since. It was not all "pretty, round and smooth."


Don't bet that the fact you actually heard it will count for anything in Heck148's eyes! :lol:


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> Don't bet that the fact you actually heard it will count for anything in Heck148's eyes! :lol:


I heard vK/BPO live once. Bruckner 9 iirc...it was very good, certainly not overwhelming, but well done...the many youtube clips I've heard tend to support this general impression....Karajan did not want a hard, brilliant sound, esp in the brass and woodwinds....that short changes the high end of the dynamic level..[for hard-edged brilliance, try Solti, Toscanini, Mravinsky, Reiner - huge difference from vK]. the studio recordings are, to my ears, heavily processed - much like CBS did for Ormandy and the "Philadelphia sound"...the live youtube clips sound a bit more spontaneous, not quite so "buttoned down".


----------



## 1996D

Heck148 said:


> Many, many Karajan recordings are underwhelming....the guy just won't put the pedal to the metal...always the restraint, the brakes on, the throttle held at 80-85%...he is consistent - everything smooth, legato, round, pretty....for musical consistency, one should go to podium greats like Monteux or Reiner....they always make musical sense, whatever the repertoire...remarkable flexibility and musicianship....they always get it right..


Music is supposed to be beautiful, it's the only thing that feeds the mouths of the musicians that play it and the composers who create it--the only thing that has positive reach. You know, it's very easy to get in your train of thought, but it's toxic, because ugliness is much easier to produce, and is negative in its energy.

To choose beauty is the hard road but it's the only road; it's what's righteous.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

1996D said:


> Music is supposed to be beautiful, it's the only thing that feeds the mouths of the musicians that play it and the composers who create it--the only thing that has positive reach. You know, it's very easy to get in your train of thought, but it's toxic, because ugliness is much easier to produce, and is negative in its energy.
> 
> To choose beauty is the hard road but it's the only road; it's what's righteous.


Okay, hahaha. Nice troll job.


----------



## Heck148

1996D said:


> Music is supposed to be beautiful,......


sometimes, yes, sometimes, no....the violence of Miraculous Mandarin, the rape scene of Lady Macbeth/Mtzensk, many sections of "Le Sacre" are not supposed to be beautiful, they are mean and nasty....music expresses all facets of human life, human personality and emotion....at times it can ugly and nasty...trying to make it or present it otherwise is a mistake, a mis-expression....


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Okay, hahaha. Nice troll job.


lol!! really!!


----------



## Larkenfield

Speaking in general, one cannot always put lipstick on a pig and call it beautiful. It doesn’t work or people will resent it. Not all composers are striving for beauty in everything they write. I couldn’t stand imusic if it was all beautiful because it’s not a reflection of real life. But I could stand it if the interpretation was good and seemed honest. A beautiful surface veneer is not always called for. Even some of the Chopin Scherzi, a beautiful veneer is not necessarily being called for because some are full of sarcasm and seem to have elements of rancor or bitterness. But did HBK always go for beauty? I don’t think so. There’s too much energy in some of them. A conductor cannot have a 50-year career working with the top orchestras and artists in the world and not record anything worth hearing. And I believe some of his worst critics have not heard enough to paint him, or anyone, for that matter, in all one color. 

If only Toscanini had half the interest in state of the art sound that von Karajan had. I believe that HVK saw the recording process in an entirely different light than concert performances—that it had some dramatic advantages. It’s possible to tweak and manipulate the balance of sound, including in a good way, for listening at home on a sound system if one doesn’t go too far, which unfortunately I feel that he sometimes did and it gave some of his recordings of falsity that, when one noticed, can be highly irritating and make him enemies. I would have respected Toscanini more if he hadn’t done so many recordings in that boxy, awful studio 8H and didn’t seem so indifferent to good recorded sound. Von Karajan was not indifferent to state-the-art recorded sound though at time times I felt that he went to far with it. I also felt that the DG engineers were part of it to come up with a standardized or proprietary sound, such as their use of ambience and reverb to enrich their recordings. It can create immediate impact and appeal which the general public seems to like – he sold millions upon millions of records and helped create one of the most successful periods of recorded classical music that ever existed. Nevertheless, his recordings are going through a reevaluation process since his death and the debate is likely to continue about their worth for many years to come. I believe that anyone who makes a sweeping judgment about any conductor or musician without taking each recording one by one, is just as bad as whatever he did because they miss the exceptions to their highly prejudicial biased viewpoint. HvK Is usually not my first choice among conductors, but over the years I have become quite curious about what he did when I happened to hear something by him, and I’ve been surprised and impressed as much as I’ve been disappointed.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Speaking in general, one cannot always put lipstick on a pig and call it beautiful...


Some pigs are quite fetching with lipstick. And high heels.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Another one for the "Bests" pile. Apparently, Karajan was moved to tears by the young Kissin's performance. The BPO plays brilliantly as well.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> lol!! really!!


C'mon, Heck. Repent of your evil ways and do what is righteous. I sense the good in you. Put away the Reiner and choose Karajan before it is too late.


----------



## CnC Bartok

KenOC said:


> Some pigs are quite fetching with lipstick. And high heels.


Finally getting used to Rural life then, Ken?


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> C'mon, Heck. Repent of your evil ways and do what is righteous. I sense the good in you. Put away the Reiner and choose Karajan before it is too late.


LOL!! I'll seek divine guidance and forgiveness for traveling the errant and un-righteous non HvK path!!


----------



## Merl

Heck148 said:


> LOL!! I'll seek divine guidance and forgiveness for traveling the errant and un-righteous non HvK path!!


Shun the non-believer. Shunnnnnnnnnn!


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> View attachment 125380
> 
> 
> Another one for the "Bests" pile. Apparently, Karajan was moved to tears by the young Kissin's performance. The BPO plays brilliantly as well.


Not one I particularly go for. Karajan didn't have great success with this concerto. Funny as he was a great Tchaikovsky conductor.


----------

