# What's wrong with Karajan?



## adriesba

Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## 20centrfuge

I'm not an expert on the issue. I think people acknowledge that he was a fine musician but are put off by his egomania. The fact that he closes his eyes while he conducts is annoying to many. It's as if as if it is HIS OWN PRIVATE musical sound world and the orchestra is there not to share in it, but to be subservient to it.


----------



## Ulfilas

It depends I guess how much you've heard.

I think in certain repertoire he was excellent, but it generally was not the central Germanic repertoire with which he was normally associated, in my opinion.

I think he was at his best in Puccini, the 20th-century Russians, Bruckner, and the Second Viennese School, rather than Brahms and Beethoven. He also made well-regarded (by others) recordings of Mahler.


----------



## Eusebius12

I loved Karajan, then went completely cold to him. He didn't really conduct in a lot of those recordings anyway, merely allowing the orchestra to do its own thing. He was a pretty repellent character, an enthusiastic Nazi, and a control freak throughout his career. His name was once on everything, now virtually nothing. Although his conducting became virtually conducting without actually doing anything, or even engaging much, something of the chilling quality of his personality is evident in his recordings in my opinion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I prefer Karajan to Bernstein in just about everything. It's all up to the listener's preference. There is nothing wrong with Karajan. Even his Rite of Spring that Stravinsky himself criticized had some interesting things.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan.
> 
> Am I missing something?


adriesba go to Advanced Search , then Karajan, title 

only......


----------



## SONNET CLV

*What's wrong with Karajan?*

The only response I can think of is to say he has few recordings representing his work in my personal collection.

And I have no desire to add any.


----------



## adriesba

Rogerx said:


> adriesba go to Advanced Search , then Karajan, title
> 
> only......


I found this quote on "The best Von Karajan box" thread:



> Best von Karajan box? Uhh, his coffin?


That is the opinion that I have been finding about him. I just don't understand why.


----------



## Rogerx

I found another 3

https://www.talkclassical.com/34088-karajan.html?highlight=Karajan

https://www.talkclassical.com/59952-bernstein-karajan-both-neither.html?highlight=Karajan

https://www.talkclassical.com/58252-when-karajan-died.html?highlight=Karajan


----------



## adriesba

Rogerx said:


> I found another 3
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/34088-karajan.html?highlight=Karajan
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/59952-bernstein-karajan-both-neither.html?highlight=Karajan
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/58252-when-karajan-died.html?highlight=Karajan


There are some more positive opinions in the other threads, but they don't seem to be getting new posts recently. I just got the feeling recently that people think his recordings are worthless or something like that.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

adriesba said:


> Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan.
> 
> Am I missing something?


*The long answer:*

1. Popular things often incur backlashes. Karajan is the single best selling classical conductor of all time, in excess of 200 million albums. Ergo, he incurs backlash.

2. Karajan joined the Nazi party before WWII. While most indications are that he was not ideological and did this to advance his career, some people hold it against him.

3. From a stylistic standpoint, Karajan is frequently criticized for unduly emphasizing beauty, "slickness" and legato in his recordings. It is also claimed that too many of his recordings sound like one another, as if he applies a house style to a piece irrespective of its origin, tone, or historical period.

4. Citing the obscure is often employed as a strategy for asserting one's dominance in a discussion between persons (not just in classical music, to be sure). Since Karajan is the polar opposite of obscure, the impulse may be to cite something more obscure and claim its superiority. This is a relatively safe claim, given the obscurity of the thing cited.

*The short answer:*

Nothing is wrong with Karajan. His recordings typically range from excellent to competent, with only a few stinkers. His style is a style, just as much as Bernstein, Chailly, Gardiner, Furtwangler, Kleiber, and so on possess a style. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't.

Personally, my favorite recordings of most pieces in the Romantic period repertoire tend to be Karajan's (e.g. Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Bruckner). He also has some estimable early modern recordings to his name (e.g. Strauss, Sibelius, Shoenberg, Berg, Webern). His Bach is not great for me (and I consider myself a Karajan fan). I like his Mozart and Haydn, but some don't.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> There are some more positive opinions in the other threads, but they don't seem to be getting new posts recently. I just got the feeling recently that people think his recordings are worthless or something like that.


Let them think, see post above mine, sums it up quit well.


----------



## DavidA

What’s wrong with Karajan?

He was highly successful in everything he did and rose to a position of power in the musical establishment and therefore incurred the wrath of those who were not successful themselves. He sold millions of records - more than anyone else - and therefore was accused of wrecking the recording industry. You cannot let that sort of success go unhated! 
I believe by some he was also blamed for starting the Second World War! :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Nothing is wrong with Karajan; he is clearly one of the greats. I find his Richard Strauss to be almost without peer, and I think all of his Bruckner is excellent to superb. I am a fan of the 1962 Beethoven symphony cycle as well, and in one or two Sibelius Symphonies (especially No. 4) his recordings are as good as anyone's. He was also enormously successful in opera, and sometimes really great in repertoire where, if you listened to the clichés, you might be surprised. His Hadyn, for example, or Dvořák 8. And there's an excellent Prokofiev 5, as well as very fine recordings of Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Schönberg, Berg, and Webern.

Like all conductors, there were a few duds, such as his Mozart Requiem, which for me is heavy and dull. Just one example.

I think the main "problem," such as it is, has been diagnosed well above. Namely, his mostly deserved high popularity, for a Classical musician, has spawned a certain backlash. The backlash has written a narrative about Karajan, that he was a one-dimensional conductor whose interpretations were always smooth, homogenized, and without edge, that has a very small kernel of truth. But anyone with a better than passing acquaintance with his catalog will realize quickly that that narrative is not born out in reality all that often.

Record collectors can be fetishists for the obscure and esoteric, as well. "Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!"

Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic helped _define_ what great modern orchestral music-making is. That's just a fact. In many ways, his legacy is a victim of its own success.

I posit that if Karajan's entire recorded legacy was magically forgotten, but then rediscovered after a long period when no one remembered anything about him, we would all be blown away by the quality of what he accomplished.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Hey, don't you go maligning the work of Pispott Q. Jakhasz. 

Otherwise, well said


----------



## Haydn man

I agree with much of what is written above, I have many Karajan recordings and enjoy them all. His influence and power attracted many admirers and probably an equal number of those envious of him.
He was idiosyncratic and he went for that big band smooth sound especially in his later years, His late Mozart symphonies enjoyed glorious reviews and I love them but they do sound bloated and old fashioned now if you listen to the more modern style HIP performances.
He was a product of his time


----------



## Tsaraslondon

Phil loves classical said:


> I prefer Karajan to Bernstein in just about everything. It's all up to the listener's preference. There is nothing wrong with Karajan. Even his Rite of Spring that Stravinsky himself criticized had some interesting things.


And he really took Stravinsky's comments to heart. His second recording is much better than his first.


----------



## adriesba

Tsaraslondon said:


> And he really took Stravinsky's comments to heart. His second recording is much better than his first.


I don't think I was aware that he recorded two. I love _Le Sacre du Printemps_! I must check this out!


----------



## annaw

I really like Karajan! I have a soft spot for him as I listened to his recordings a lot when I first got into classical music. I agree with the things that have been said already. He managed to develop a very distinctive sound that some really love while others not as much. I think his big and "smooth" conducting is marvellous for composers such as Bruckner and his Beethoven symphony cycles, especially the one from 1964, are very highly regarded. Also, he was a great opera conductor!


----------



## Flamme

From what I gathered 3 reasons...People think:
1. He is overrated
2. Too stiff and conservative while conducting
3. He a nahzee.
I like his style, he was a virtuoso imho.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

adriesba said:


> I don't think I was aware that he recorded two. I love _Le Sacre du Printemps_! I must check this out!


It still wouldn't be my first choice for the work, but it's a lot more exciting than his first take on it.

You can find it on The Originals reissue of his excellent Prokoviev 5.


----------



## david johnson

In my sincere desire to help all those here who detest HVK, I offer to give all of your recordings of him a decent home. Please send them immediately.


----------



## Flamme

Haha, 2econd dat...Can we split...


----------



## adriesba

david johnson said:


> In my sincere desire to help all those here who detest HVK, I offer to give all of your recordings of him a decent home. Please send them immediately.


Since david johnson has first dibs, you can send the duplicates to me.


----------



## adriesba

Flamme said:


> Haha, 2econd dat...Can we split...


Aha! I didn't see your post till after I posted mine. I see everyone wants recordings. :lol:


----------



## adriesba

Tsaraslondon said:


> It still wouldn't be my first choice for the work, but it's a lot more exciting than his first take on it.
> 
> You can find it on The Originals reissue of his excellent Prokoviev 5.


OK, thanks. 
I love the piece, so I wouldn't mind giving it a listen.

What would your first choice be?


----------



## Tsaraslondon

adriesba said:


> OK, thanks.
> I love the piece, so I wouldn't mind giving it a listen.
> 
> What would your first choice be?


I have a soft spot for Markevitch's Philharmonia recording (the stereo version), though I suppose it's starting to show its age now. For a more modern recording, Dorati perhaps, or Gergiev.


----------



## larold

I don't think "wrong" is the way to put it. 

Karajan is one of the best-selling classical artists in history, probably No. 2 to Toscanini. In his heyday he ran orchestras in Berlin, Vienna, La Scala and elsewhere a day a week. He followed a long line of Germanic conductors succeeding Furtwangler in Berlin. 

He was in Europe what Bernstein was in America: the clear No. 1 classical music leader on either side of the Atlantic. No conductor since their deaths in 1989 and 1990 has achieved such an exalted position.

However, Karajan was a "heavy" conductor of Germanic music. His Mendelssohn, to my mind, had more pounding timpani than dancing rhythm. His Beethoven was similarly heavy and lacked the motion people put in it today. 

He was said to be too stilted and inflexible in studio recordings though, when you heard him in radio recordings, he was more flexible.

I think probably the No. 1 "problem" with Karajan is he was overexposed. Everyone heard his music and developed an opinion of it. There was also the Nazi thing that put off some people.


----------



## Enthusiast

Of course Karajan was a very great conductor (as was Bernstein who he is compared with, above). For the most part I consider many of Karajan's recordings as "essential alternatives" - they so often do amazing (and yet legitimate) things with the music but only rarely seem definitive. His Mozart symphonies and his Baroque music is very hard to take, though. 

But there are questions to be answered about his joining the Nazis. To get on in his career may be true but membership will have brought obligations with it. His autocratic manner with his orchestras is noted but many seem of the players seem to look back on him with amused affection.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

What is wrong with Karajan? Not a lot really. He's not infallible, but then which conductor with such a wide repertoire is?

I refute the suggestion that none of his recordings are "definitive" (not that I particularly like that term anyway). How about some of his early opera recordings for EMI? His *Der Rosenkavalier* and *Falstaff* remain top recommendations for both operas. Both of his recordings of *Madama Butterfly* (the first with Callas, the second with Freni) are also top recommendations, as is his *Il Trovatore* with Callas. The Decca *La Boheme* would also be most people's first choice.

In purely orchestral repertoire he has recorded some absolute classics, like the Bruckner 8th and 9th Symphonies, Mahler's 9th, Honegger's 2nd and 3rd, his DG Sibelius 4th and his EMI Sibelius 5th. The 1970s Tchaikovsky 6th (again for EMI) also takes a lot of beating and was recently chosen as top choice on BBC's Building a Library programme (by a Russian reviewer, no less). And those are just off the top of my head. And his Beethoven cycles all have something to recommend them.


----------



## adriesba

Tsaraslondon said:


> What is wrong with Karajan? Not a lot really. He's not infallible, but then which conductor with such a wide repertoire is?
> 
> I refute the suggestion that none of his recordings are "definitive" (not that I particularly like that term anyway). How about some of his early opera recordings for EMI? His *Der Rosenkavalier* and *Falstaff* remain top recommendations for both operas. Both of his recordings of *Madama Butterfly* (the first with Callas, the second with Freni) are also top recommendations, as is his *Il Trovatore* with Callas. The Decca *La Boheme* would also be most people's first choice.
> 
> In purely orchestral repertoire he has recorded some absolute classics, like the Bruckner 8th and 9th Symphonies, Mahler's 9th, Honegger's 2nd and 3rd, his DG Sibelius 4th and his EMI Sibelius 5th. The 1970s Tchaikovsky 6th (again for EMI) also takes a lot of beating and was recently chosen as top choice on BBC's Building a Library programme (by a Russian reviewer, no less). And those are just off the top of my head. And his Beethoven cycles all have something to recommend them.


I agree.

Those two Puccini recordings you mentioned seem to be two of the most well-loved opera recordings ever, from what I've seen.

I have Karajan's digital Beethoven symphony cycle and enjoy it.


----------



## Marc

Von Karajan was all over the place, he was, as we say in Dutch, a 'high tree'. And "high trees do catch a lot of wind". He appeared to be very full of himself (as do many artists, btw), and everyone had/has an opininion about him. I doubt whether he suffered from that.
To me, he's 'just' another well known conductor. Like Enthusiast, I don't get very enthusiastic about his recordings of earlier-than-19th-century music (with a few exceptions).
I'm less familiair with the opera repertoire in general, but I think Tsaraslondon has got a very good point in pointing out Von Karajan's merits in that genre. Imho, he was really great in f.i. Puccini. I'd like to add that I also endorse his 1978 recording of Mozart's Figaro. 
He's often been compared to Bernstein, who was considered his main 'rival'. I personally prefer Lenny. In a way, Von Karajan was more solid (comparable to Toscanini and Marriner), but with Bernstein's performances/recordings always something (special) was happening. And Bernstein made great videos with him lecturing about music. Again: even if you didn't agree, when Lenny was lecturing, always someting (special) was happening.
But back in the days, when they both were alive and kicking, if you wanted to have a solid and mostly beautiful approach of classical 19th century repertoire, then Von Karajan was your man.


----------



## Flamme

Whats with his private life, what kind of man he was...


----------



## DavidA

Flamme said:


> Whats with his private life, what kind of man he was...


He was actually a pretty private man and (in contrast to Bernstein) an introvert. He hated parties and functions where he had to appear. He was married 3 times and had two daughters by his last wife. He was extremely single minded and could be ruthless and unpredictable. He only wanted people to see what he wanted them to see and carefully cultivated his image. But in that he was no different from many other conductors who were vain in a profession where modesty is rare. He could of course be extremely good company when he chose. Of course a very complicated man.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> Record collectors can be fetishists for the obscure and esoteric, as well. "Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!"


Man, I about died laughing at that. Well played. :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

Tsaraslondon said:


> I refute the suggestion that none of his recordings are "definitive" (not that I particularly like that term anyway). How about some of his early opera recordings for EMI? His *Der Rosenkavalier* and *Falstaff* remain top recommendations for both operas. Both of his recordings of *Madama Butterfly* (the first with Callas, the second with Freni) are also top recommendations, as is his *Il Trovatore* with Callas. The Decca *La Boheme* would also be most people's first choice.


It was just an opinion ... but I agree that it doesn't really apply to his earlier recordings.


----------



## adriesba

flamencosketches said:


> Man, I about died laughing at that. Well played. :lol:


Agreed. I enjoyed that perhaps too much. I can just imagine someone saying something like that seriously. That's why it's so funny. :lol:


----------



## adriesba

Flamme said:


> Whats with his private life, what kind of man he was...


I think people just become obsessed with learning about the personal lives of famous people. Like all the obsessing over actors or whatnot. I suppose that some people just have a harder time separating the art from the artist. I prefer to keep them separate. Otherwise I'd have to reject half the catalogue or more! :lol:


----------



## larold

I'm not an operafile though I see one live every now and again. The only two opera highlights recordings in my collection are both led by Karajan -- *Beethoven Fidelio* and the 1950s *Verdi Otello* with Del Monaco.


----------



## Sad Al

Not much wrong with Karajan, although perhaps he was no Furtwängler. Many good recordings that have stood the test of time. He believed in reincarnation and promised that 'I'll be back'


----------



## millionrainbows

Phil loves classical said:


> I prefer Karajan to Bernstein in just about everything.


Even in Mahler?

I didn't care much for my 1963 set of Beethoven, but the I got the later 1973 or whatever set, and I really like it, especially the sound. Karajan has a certain forcefulness in his renditions, and this is due, I think, to his relationship with the orchestra. They seem to really believe in him.


----------



## perdido34

Whatever kind of opinion one has about his conducting, for me the fact that he joined the Nazi party means I don't want to listen to his performances. Even if he joined "only" to advance his career, that does not absolve him of signing onto a group that killed millions of people based on their religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.

There are lots of musicians who have left us wonderful performances and WEREN'T Nazis.


----------



## Rogerx

No politics please, go downstairs for that.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I judge him just as I judge any other conductor - regardless of the record sales, personal image, etc. etc. etc. - solely on his music-making and what I hear in it. And what I hear is a conductor who transformed the BPO into a slick-oiled machine who churned out reliable performances of massive amounts of repertoire, some (but certainly not all) of which remains among the finest to be recorded of that repertoire in the stereo era. That is the highest praise I have for him. And as I mentioned in another thread, he is the King of Strauss and Bruckner for me, also earning high plaudits for his many lovely opera collaborations.


----------



## larold

_I prefer Karajan to Bernstein in just about everything. Even in Mahler?_

I'd say _especially_ in Mahler, at least the ones he recorded. Here's the finale of Karajan's famous Mahler 9; judge for yourself






He also has quite a magnificent 6th






Or the famous adagietto from the 5th






You can buy his delicious 4th symphony on a SHM-CD from Japan also. These are made with a different kind of plastic the brings out sound attributes better.









There's a famous Rite of Spring from Gergiev also available on SHM technology.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I used to avoid Karajan because of hearing from various people that he consistently altered scores and made whatever piece he conducted about himself rather than the composer. His podium style and egotistical public persona reinforced my prejudice against him. In my entire CD collection I don’t have a single example of Karajan. However, I hear him frequently on the radio and find his music very good. Over the past few years I’ve started thinking that my antipathy toward conductors who (allegedly) alter scores is actually hypocritical, because certain conductors I like did it (Stokowski, Szell). That said, I still especially appreciate Reiner, Steinberg, and Gielen as true servants of the music, and I prefer them to Karajan because I can hear more detail and nuance in the music besides just finding their interpretations more consistent with my personal tastes. I know Bernstein was great, but most of his interpretations are too intense and dramatic for my tastes, whereas I do enjoy Karajan.


----------



## adriesba

seitzpf said:


> I used to avoid Karajan because of hearing from various people that he consistently altered scores and made whatever piece he conducted about himself rather than the composer. His podium style and egotistical public persona reinforced my prejudice against him. In my entire CD collection I don't have a single example of Karajan. However, I hear him frequently on the radio and find his music very good. Over the past few years I've started thinking that my antipathy toward conductors who (allegedly) alter scores is actually hypocritical, because certain conductors I like did it (Stokowski, Szell). That said, I still especially appreciate Reiner, Steinberg, and Gielen as true servants of the music, and I prefer them to Karajan because I can hear more detail and nuance in the music besides just finding their interpretations more consistent with my personal tastes. I know Bernstein was great, but most of his interpretations are too intense and dramatic for my tastes, whereas I do enjoy Karajan.


How exactly would the conductor alter the score?


----------



## Art Rock

Skip repeats for instance.


----------



## Guest

He's my favorite overall, and an electron microscope couldn't find my interest in dissenting opinions.


----------



## Enthusiast

Rogerx said:


> No politics please, go downstairs for that.


Fair enough .... if it was controversial. But do you really think anyone here will be offended by a critique of Nazism? It's a little more than criticising Karajan for supporting a living and active politician. And even if it were a current controversy, what the Nazis did was more than mere politics. I think it does say something about Karajan that he actually joined the party and it did affect his reputation for much of his subsequent life with even Bernstein (before coming to respect him, I think) referring to him as the first Nazi he had met. These things are all part of the equation, here. And it may also be part of the OP question that some can forget or sideline that part of his life while others quite simply cannot.


----------



## JAS

What's wrong with Karajan? Well, whatever it is, it must be serious. I understand he is already dead. 

Many years ago, I applied at a local record store. (Yes, there were still record stores then, and they still sold records.) I was apparently disqualified the moment I included Karajan on my list of admired conductors for recordings. I still remember the look of disapproval the moment I spoke his name.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

adriesba said:


> How exactly would the conductor alter the score?


Stokowski was the most egregious example of this. He would add instrumental parts that weren't in the score - for example, in RK Scheherazade and Holst's Planets he would add random gong crashes and xylophone parts to emphasize climaxes. And in Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks, he even dubbed in a soundtrack of crowds cheering and firecrackers exploding at the end! He would also instruct sound engineers to mike certain instruments closer and upset balances, etc. His fingerprints were all over everything he conducted to the point where sometimes it doesn't even sound like the same work compared to someone else (not to say I don't like his incredibly lush, distinctive conducting). Szell thought certain composers like Schumann and Dvorak were weak orchestrators, so he would rescore some sections based on what he thought sounded better. Karajan never did such things - I think what seitzpf was talking about was how people think he alters the score by making everything sound polished, slick, shallow, homogeneous, metronomic, etc. etc.


----------



## visionquest1972

Nothing. I love Karajan. I love his studio recording of Tristan und Isolde.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Many artists have joined many bad organizations and espoused many bad beliefs for many bad reasons.

Personally, I would rather live in a world in which I can continue to enjoy Wagner, Picasso, Shostakovich, Schwarzkopf, Strauss, and Karajan.

As far as skipping repeats, this was a very common practice in the early days of recording. I've listened to recordings of both persuasions, and have never missed a repeat when it was gone. In fact, I tend to like symphonies better without them. They were an artifact of their time, in which recording did not exist and people had to get the most music for their concert going dollar. People used to shout for encores of pleasing movements, too. Should we record those?


----------



## Knorf

Another terrific opera recording for Karajan is his La Scala double-bill of Mascagni's _Cavelleria rusticana_ and Leoncavallo's _Pagliacci_. The latter, with Carlo Begonzi in the title role, is astonishing, reference-quality in every way. Karajan was generally great in verismo opera.


----------



## Flamme

Im not surprised he joined really...Watching many shows on Viasat history where its shown how deep was connection between germans and nazis it was in every pore of society, I cannot judge him or others, 4 that matter.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

adriesba said:


> Alright, this may very well be just in my imagination, but I feel like a lot of people here just don't like Herbert von Karajan. I don't seem to see his name often. Is this just my imagination, or is he not highly regarded on this forum? I have not perused every section of the forum, so I might not be seeing all of the opinions. But it seems like when people recommend recordings of works that Karajan conducted, some will name the most obscure recording before they name anything from Karajan. I like what I have heard from Karajan.
> 
> Am I missing something?


The misnomer presented in this thread is that if Karajan isn't mentioned often in people's discussions here of their favorite recordings, it means Karajan is disliked or hated. The simple case is that Karajan made his name largely on mass production of reliable interpretations in good sound. He presented himself as a sort of default choice for the casual classical fan. It's not surprising that more intense classical fans such as you find here will opt for other recordings that take risks and say something about the music. Most of us are not interested in the generic, reliable choice, though we may keep it on our shelves for occasional reference.

I was in a rehearsal several weeks ago where the conductor reminded us to always have the "corporate sound" as our top priority. I was personally horrified at this notion. To me every piece of music is a different animal. You shouldn't be applying the same sound to everything. That smacks me as making it all about the ensemble's greatness instead of about the music.

And this is exactly how I feel about Karajan. The same sound was applied to everything. There was no insight into the specific composer. It was indeed the corporate sound. So why should it be a surprise that people on this forum who want to hear particular composers interpreted in a way that reveals their unique and individual musical ideas do not opt for Karajan?


----------



## Simplicissimus

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Stokowski was the most egregious example of this. He would add instrumental parts that weren't in the score - for example, in RK Scheherazade and Holst's Planets he would add random gong crashes and xylophone parts to emphasize climaxes. And in Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks, he even dubbed in a soundtrack of crowds cheering and firecrackers exploding at the end! He would also instruct sound engineers to mike certain instruments closer and upset balances, etc. His fingerprints were all over everything he conducted to the point where sometimes it doesn't even sound like the same work compared to someone else (not to say I don't like his incredibly lush, distinctive conducting). Szell thought certain composers like Schumann and Dvorak were weak orchestrators, so he would rescore some sections based on what he thought sounded better. Karajan never did such things - I think what seitzpf was talking about was how people think he alters the score by making everything sound polished, slick, shallow, homogeneous, metronomic, etc. etc.


I am pretty sure Karajan sometimes changed at least the number of instruments specified by the score, like six horns instead of four, in order to get the sound he wanted. But right, not as egregious as Stokowski. Yet I like Stokowski's artistic sensibility better than von Karajan's, which is not to say I dislike the latter.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Flamme said:


> Im not surprised he joined really...Watching many shows on Viasat history where its shown how deep was connection between germans and nazis it was in every pore of society, I cannot judge him or others, 4 that matter.


Yeah, I'm not going to affect moral superiority when I did not live through the times. If I were in danger of going hungry or being unable to protect my family, I can only imagine what choices I would make in a fascist or totalitarian society.

From all accounts, he had no particular racist or anti-Jewish reliefs. He married a partly Jewish woman and told the Nazi party to screw off when they confronted him over it.

If it were that Goebbels also conducted and had recordings, I could see it. But Karajan is no Goebbels.


----------



## Dimace

I find nothing wrong with Herbie and with any other director. Everybody gave us something memorable, everybody had their plus and minus and that's all.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The same sound was applied to everything. There was no insight into the specific composer. It was indeed the corporate sound.


This easily regurgitated canard will never die, even though it is solidly refuted by any number of recordings of Karajan in rehearsal floating around out there, not to mention, you know, _the actual recordings_.



> So why should it be a surprise that people on this forum who want to hear particular composers interpreted in a way that reveals their unique and individual musical ideas do not opt for Karajan?


Straw man! I, too, absolutely want to hear recordings that reveal the composer's "unique and individual musical ideas," and I do opt for Karajan. Because, at his best, he is supreme at that very ideal!

In great music, no one interpretation will ever have all of the answers.


----------



## Tsaraslondon

It seems to me that there are many people here who dislike everything that Karajan conducted, simply because he conducted it. Maybe even more than those who say they like everything he conducted, because I personally don't know anybody who likes everything he conducted. I do like quite a lot of his performances and have quite a few of his recordings in my collection (after all he was immensely prolific and had a long career) but I don't just blindly buy it _because it's Karajan_, whereas I get the impression that some people here refuse to buy or listen to a recording because it _is_ by Karajan.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Rogerx said:


> No politics please, go downstairs for that.


Downstairs? What do you mean?


----------



## Knorf

HenryPenfold said:


> Downstairs? What do you mean?


He keeps his best wine in the cellar. Be a good lad: pick us up a bottle of that '99 Château Margaux.

(I think he means semi-facetiously that there's a dedicated forum down the list for political talk.)


----------



## adriesba

visionquest1972 said:


> Nothing. I love Karajan. I love his studio recording of Tristan und Isolde.


I have that one. It's really good.


----------



## adriesba

HenryPenfold said:


> Downstairs? What do you mean?


I believe "downstairs" is a term that is sometimes used to refer to the social groups part of the forum.


----------



## Duncan

HenryPenfold said:


> Downstairs? What do you mean?





Knorf said:


> (I think he means semi-facetiously that there's a dedicated forum down the list for political talk.)





adriesba said:


> I believe "downstairs" is a term that is sometimes used to refer to the social groups part of the forum.


In the "*upstairs*" or Main section of the forum we have a dedicated subsection entitled -

"*Politics and Religion in Classical Music*" which can be found here -

https://www.talkclassical.com/politics-and-religion-in-classical-music/

(It's a sub-forum of the "*Religious Music*" section of the main forum - second from the top - underneath "Classical Music Discussion"...)

Technically, usage of the terms "*downstairs*" or the "dungeon" or "The Land of Strange Magic"... refers to a sub-section of the main forum which is called "*Groups*" and can be accessed (exclusively by registered forum members) by clicking on the word "Community" which is located on the main page under the "TalkClassical" logo - near the top - between "Calendar" and "Forum Actions"... Click on "Community" - click on "Groups" - click on any of the groups to see what might interest you - if you're so inclined you can "join" a group and start discussing any one of a hundred different subjects - art, literature, science, religion, politics, etc....


----------



## MarkW

He was a reliable conductor of most corners of the repertoire; he built a sheen into the sound of the BPO that few other orchestras or combos matched; and he recorded mainly for DGG, which in the LP era manufactured high quality, well engineered discs out of a softer, nearly noiseless vinyl. Very little to complain about in terms of standards. But interpretively, to each his own. Some like smooth; some like to see the chisel marks; some like in between. Like the difference between driving Ferrari and a Cobra. There are so many interpretive choices available in most pieces, that it's easy to like best another performance than Karajan's, and his is often viewed as a fallback (like Ormandy's were in this country in the '60s), and some just rebel at his tendency to smooth out rough edges. Compare his and Solti's Ring cycles. Both are spectacular but in totally different ways.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Knorf said:


> This easily regurgitated canard will never die, even though it is solidly refuted by any number of recordings of Karajan in rehearsal floating around out there, not to mention, you know, _the actual recordings_.
> 
> Straw man! I, too, absolutely want to hear recordings that reveal the composer's "unique and individual musical ideas," and I do opt for Karajan. Because, at his best, he is supreme at that very ideal!
> 
> In great music, no one interpretation will ever have all of the answers.


You seem to be a quick learner


----------



## NLAdriaan

HvK will be an everlasting controversy in the CM connaisseur's world. Also in this thread and in many many many others, a war starts as soon as Karajan's work is at stake. 

Not that he (He) would have minded. As Karajannis, the Austrian Armenian Greek, was the most successful businessman ever in classical music who was certainly in it for the money. This money however would come mainly from big sales to mainstream audiences and much less so from the small percentage of CM freaks that live out here (myself included, no offense). As a businessman he realized early on that branding and channels were everything. The Big audience has to know your name and your products have to be available everywhere. And like a car manufacturer, you have to release new models as much as possible, also if there is not much new about it.

It is quite smart how he managed to sell essentially the same product again and again in a new package, where he didn't even compose the product himself. Like no one else in CM, Karajan became a brand himself, a household name even. In all this, Karajan single handedly left composers, orchestras and record labels behind him: Again, quite amazing! The public could simply rely that if Karajan's name was on the sleeve, it was OK. Evidence is found in his second Viennese School recordings (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), which sold in huge numbers to audiences that would never have bought this music otherwise. Because of this, Karajan would simply record whatever he liked, whenever he liked it, where most other conductors were overpowered by record labels and managers. In this way he contributed to the exposure of CM. But where Lenny was a heartfelt prophet of Classical Music, Karajan was mainly in it for the money. And Lenny was the overwhelmingly sympathetic one, where Karajan was the distant object of admiration. And another interesting fact was that both Lenny and Karajan rose to fame post WWII, but each representing 'opposing parties'. But all of this still does not say anything yet about the music itself. 

I think it is fair to say that there is indeed a HvK sound. It doesn't take much to hear it in his recordings. Some describe it as Technicolor, Picture postcard or 'The Corporate sound'. Others describe it as the best sound they know. I certainly do recognize a certain 'sound'. To me, in most music, I would not choose Karajan's recordings as my favourite pick. But again, he always delivers a reliable alternative. And as he recorded music over and over again, and it is all readily available and reissued again and again. There is an overwhelming lot to choose from. 

I think that the unique combination of musical and commercial talents, have made Karajan the most inescapable name in CM, ever. And as the market for recorded classical music will never be the same, there will never be a successor 

Another idea for a similar hi-energy thread: What's wrong with Wagner?:cheers:


----------



## Rogerx

HenryPenfold said:


> Downstairs? What do you mean?


In the groups. ......................


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> I believe "downstairs" is a term that is sometimes used to refer to the social groups part of the forum.


You are right . that's what I mean.


----------



## nncortes

I really like Karajan. I think he was a harsh leader that demanded excellence; but without that you wouldn't get that amazing, unified sound. Listen to his recording of Strauss' Alpine Symphony. It is breathtaking. I think in many ways, he was the opposite of Bernstein. Bernstein was a liberal extrovert, Karajan a conservative introvert. Karajan was, by all accounts, an avid pilot, sports car driver, sailor, and skiier. You can hear that kind of excitement and precision in his interpretations. I like the perfection and this striving quality of his recordings. He denied the Nazi thing and it was never an issue. People use that to attempt to slander his success. Moreover, he pushed the limits of technology so much and we have a lot of high quality recordings from the BPO because of that. He also had a major influence in Japan.


----------



## Heck148

adriesba said:


> How exactly would the conductor alter the score?


Add instruments, change octaves, add pitches to existing parts....


----------



## BachIsBest

NLAdriaan said:


> HvK will be an everlasting controversy in the CM connaisseur's world. Also in this thread and in many many many others, a war starts as soon as Karajan's work is at stake.
> 
> Not that he (He) would have minded. As Karajannis, the Austrian Armenian Greek, was the most successful businessman ever in classical music who was certainly in it for the money. This money however would come mainly from big sales to mainstream audiences and much less so from the small percentage of CM freaks that live out here (myself included, no offense). As a businessman he realized early on that branding and channels were everything. The Big audience has to know your name and your products have to be available everywhere. And like a car manufacturer, you have to release new models as much as possible, also if there is not much new about it.
> 
> It is quite smart how he managed to sell essentially the same product again and again in a new package, where he didn't even compose the product himself. Like no one else in CM, Karajan became a brand himself, a household name even. In all this, Karajan single handedly left composers, orchestras and record labels behind him: Again, quite amazing! The public could simply rely that if Karajan's name was on the sleeve, it was OK. Evidence is found in his second Viennese School recordings (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), which sold in huge numbers to audiences that would never have bought this music otherwise. Because of this, Karajan would simply record whatever he liked, whenever he liked it, where most other conductors were overpowered by record labels and managers. In this way he contributed to the exposure of CM. But where Lenny was a heartfelt prophet of Classical Music, Karajan was mainly in it for the money. And Lenny was the overwhelmingly sympathetic one, where Karajan was the distant object of admiration. And another interesting fact was that both Lenny and Karajan rose to fame post WWII, but each representing 'opposing parties'. But all of this still does not say anything yet about the music itself.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that there is indeed a HvK sound. It doesn't take much to hear it in his recordings. Some describe it as Technicolor, Picture postcard or 'The Corporate sound'. Others describe it as the best sound they know. I certainly do recognize a certain 'sound'. To me, in most music, I would not choose Karajan's recordings as my favourite pick. But again, he always delivers a reliable alternative. And as he recorded music over and over again, and it is all readily available and reissued again and again. There is an overwhelming lot to choose from.
> 
> I think that the unique combination of musical and commercial talents, have made Karajan the most inescapable name in CM, ever. And as the market for recorded classical music will never be the same, there will never be a successor
> 
> Another idea for a similar hi-energy thread: What's wrong with Wagner?:cheers:


I don't think anyone is disputing that Karajan was good at marketing himself. I would dispute that he was in it for the money; no one who chose "conductor" as their career choice is in it for the money. You only do and succeed at that sort of thing because you are genuinely passionate about it. I'm not disputing that there was a financial component but miserly people who care mainly about money have never, and will never, become conductors. If you want evidence just look at how much he promoted Sibelius early in his career when he was less well established and Sibelius was largely unpopular. Like any great artist, Karjan genuinely cared about the quality of his art.

Obviously, there is a Karajan sound. There is also a Furtwängler sound. And a Toscanini sound. Conductors had a certain style. Did Karajan subsume music to match his style more than some other conductors: perhaps. I'm not sure how this makes him "commercialised".


----------



## Merl

The HvK controversy will never go away. He was such a huge part of CM for so long and his recording output was so huge he's impossible to escape. All I'll say is listen to his recordings on an individual basis as you would do any conductor. Be open-minded (they weren't 'all the same') and if the performance resonates with you then fine, if not there are many alternatives. You don't have to be in any 'camp' (love / hate Karajan) but if you want to read about him then Richard Osbourne's book is a very good place to start. I find him a fascinating character but I love reading about conductors and composers. What is almost certain is there will never be anyone like him in CM again and for some that's a blessing and for others it's sad.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The simple case is that Karajan made his name largely on mass production of reliable interpretations in good sound. He presented himself as a sort of default choice for the casual classical fan. It's not surprising that more intense classical fans such as you find here will opt for other recordings that take risks and say something about the music. Most of us are not interested in the generic, reliable choice, though we may keep it on our shelves for occasional reference.


I can't think of a way of discussing Karajan that I disagree with more that this one. I'm no Karajan fanboy but in recording after recording I hear him as giving us a very personal take on the music.


----------



## Merl

Enthusiast said:


> I can't think of a way of discussing Karajan that I disagree with more that this one. I'm no Karajan fanboy but in recording after recording I hear him as giving us a very personal take on the music.


Aye, reducing Karajan's body of work down to some sort of glorified James Last is churlish, silly and insulting.


----------



## Flamme

NLAdriaan said:


> HvK will be an everlasting controversy in the CM connaisseur's world. Also in this thread and in many many many others, a war starts as soon as Karajan's work is at stake.
> 
> Not that he (He) would have minded. As Karajannis, the Austrian Armenian Greek, was the most successful businessman ever in classical music who was certainly in it for the money. This money however would come mainly from big sales to mainstream audiences and much less so from the small percentage of CM freaks that live out here (myself included, no offense). As a businessman he realized early on that branding and channels were everything. The Big audience has to know your name and your products have to be available everywhere. And like a car manufacturer, you have to release new models as much as possible, also if there is not much new about it.
> 
> It is quite smart how he managed to sell essentially the same product again and again in a new package, where he didn't even compose the product himself. Like no one else in CM, Karajan became a brand himself, a household name even. In all this, Karajan single handedly left composers, orchestras and record labels behind him: Again, quite amazing! The public could simply rely that if Karajan's name was on the sleeve, it was OK. Evidence is found in his second Viennese School recordings (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), which sold in huge numbers to audiences that would never have bought this music otherwise. Because of this, Karajan would simply record whatever he liked, whenever he liked it, where most other conductors were overpowered by record labels and managers. In this way he contributed to the exposure of CM. But where Lenny was a heartfelt prophet of Classical Music, Karajan was mainly in it for the money. And Lenny was the overwhelmingly sympathetic one, where Karajan was the distant object of admiration. And another interesting fact was that both Lenny and Karajan rose to fame post WWII, but each representing 'opposing parties'. But all of this still does not say anything yet about the music itself.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that there is indeed a HvK sound. It doesn't take much to hear it in his recordings. Some describe it as Technicolor, Picture postcard or 'The Corporate sound'. Others describe it as the best sound they know. I certainly do recognize a certain 'sound'. To me, in most music, I would not choose Karajan's recordings as my favourite pick. But again, he always delivers a reliable alternative. And as he recorded music over and over again, and it is all readily available and reissued again and again. There is an overwhelming lot to choose from.
> 
> I think that the unique combination of musical and commercial talents, have made Karajan the most inescapable name in CM, ever. And as the market for recorded classical music will never be the same, there will never be a successor
> 
> Another idea for a similar hi-energy thread: What's wrong with Wagner?:cheers:


So he was armenian...Always wondered about his last name...Also Von says 2 us he was from an aristo family...If hitlers ''order'' have prevailed he would be in top echalons of society, prehaps even a minister of culture...


----------



## Eusebius12

MatthewWeflen said:


> Hey, don't you go maligning the work of Pispott Q. Jakhasz.
> 
> Otherwise, well said


Why is it that nobody remembers the name of Johann Gambolputty... de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm?


----------



## Eusebius12

For want of a more analytic answer, I find his music making cold and I respond coldly to it.


----------



## Merl

Flamme said:


> ... .If hitlers ''order'' have prevailed he would be in top echalons of society, prehaps even a minister of culture...


Highly doubtful. Hitler disliked Karajan intensely. I think his card was marked from the moment he buggered up Meistersinger in front of Hitler. Marrying a jew certainly wouldn't have endeared him any further to Hitler. A few authors suggest that by 1943 HvK was a "persona non gratta" to Hitler. Certainly by 1944 he was going nowhere with Furtwangler, Hitler and Goerring closing doors in front of him.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> HvK will be an everlasting controversy in the CM connaisseur's world. Also in this thread and in many many many others, a war starts as soon as Karajan's work is at stake.
> 
> Not that he (He) would have minded. As Karajannis, the Austrian Armenian Greek, was the most successful businessman ever in classical music who was certainly in it for the money. This money however would come mainly from big sales to mainstream audiences and much less so from the small percentage of CM freaks that live out here (myself included, no offense). As a businessman he realized early on that branding and channels were everything. The Big audience has to know your name and your products have to be available everywhere. And like a car manufacturer, you have to release new models as much as possible, also if there is not much new about it.
> 
> It is quite smart how he managed to sell essentially the same product again and again in a new package, where he didn't even compose the product himself. Like no one else in CM, Karajan became a brand himself, a household name even. In all this, Karajan single handedly left composers, orchestras and record labels behind him: Again, quite amazing! The public could simply rely that if Karajan's name was on the sleeve, it was OK. Evidence is found in his second Viennese School recordings (Schoenberg, Berg, Webern), which sold in huge numbers to audiences that would never have bought this music otherwise. Because of this, Karajan would simply record whatever he liked, whenever he liked it, where most other conductors were overpowered by record labels and managers. In this way he contributed to the exposure of CM. But where Lenny was a heartfelt prophet of Classical Music, Karajan was mainly in it for the money. And Lenny was the overwhelmingly sympathetic one, where Karajan was the distant object of admiration. And another interesting fact was that both Lenny and Karajan rose to fame post WWII, but each representing 'opposing parties'. But all of this still does not say anything yet about the music itself.
> 
> I think it is fair to say that there is indeed a HvK sound. It doesn't take much to hear it in his recordings. Some describe it as Technicolor, Picture postcard or 'The Corporate sound'. Others describe it as the best sound they know. I certainly do recognize a certain 'sound'. To me, in most music, I would not choose Karajan's recordings as my favourite pick. But again, he always delivers a reliable alternative. And as he recorded music over and over again, and it is all readily available and reissued again and again. There is an overwhelming lot to choose from.
> 
> I think that the unique combination of musical and commercial talents, have made Karajan the most inescapable name in CM, ever. And as the market for recorded classical music will never be the same, there will never be a successor
> 
> Another idea for a similar hi-energy thread: What's wrong with Wagner?:cheers:


I am utterly surprised that a man as intelligent as yourself should give such a one-dimensional answer to this. Worthy of Lebrecht himself I think! You might just as well say that because Bernstein hired an agent who negotiated him fees comparable with a Hollywood film star that he was just in it for the money! The fact is they weren't. They were in it in their very different ways for the music. Karajan happened to be a super-businessman as well as a superb musician so he made a lot of money, much to the envy of many in the world. He also made sure his players were the best paid in the world. But I don't think that is what drove him. Osborn recounts a time when he conducted the European Youth Orchestra at Salzburg and attended the youngsters' summer school, flying there and staying at his own expense and charging no fee whatever. He could, of course, afford it but so could other conductors who turned down the invitation because the youth orchestra could not afford the fee they demanded! Your mention of the Second Viennese School is interesting as Karajan actually put his own money into the project as DG was doubtful whether it would sell. Your companion between HvK and Lenny is to me totally simplistic if you read their respective biographies. The difference between them was that Lenny was an extrovert and HvK an introvert.
What drove Karajan (apart from the music) was power. Solti said of him: "He was, obviously, a man of genius, capable of absorbing scores like a sponge; his repertoire was enormous. Beyond his musical talent he possessed a tremendous appetite for power - indeed he was probably the greatest musical power broker since Wagner." That I think gets it right.


----------



## annaw

Merl said:


> Highly doubtful. Hitler disliked Karajan intensely. I think his card was marked from the moment he buggered up Meistersinger in front of Hitler. Marrying a jew certainly wouldn't have endeared him any further to Hitler. A few authors suggest that by 1943 HvK was a "persona non gratta" to Hitler. Certainly by 1944 he was going nowhere with Furtwangler, Hitler and Goerring closing doors in front of him.


Yeah, from what I've read, it was the 1940 _Die Meistersinger_ in Berlin where Bockelmann, who was supposed to sing Sachs, missed his entry apparently because he was drunk. Karajan was blamed for the mistake because he conducted without the score (great logic).


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> Yeah, from what I've read, it was the 1940 _Die Meistersinger_ in Berlin where Bockelmann, who was supposed to sing Sachs, missed his entry apparently because he was drunk. Karajan was blamed for the mistake because he conducted without the score (great logic).


He had to get out of Germany. The fact his second wife was part Jewish did not go in his favour at all with the Nazis. There is no question that he initially approved of Hitler but then so did many Germans, some of whom were later executed for plotting to remove Hitler. Of course with tyrants like Hitler you could be in favour one minute and out of favour the next. A young concert pianist was guillotined for making a joke about Hitler


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

When it comes down to it what Karajan did wasn't entirely unique - he just had the most success with it. One thinks of the parallels with the Szell/Cleveland and Reiner/Chicago machines over on the other side of the pond - both made a name for themselves turning out performances that were immaculately played, crystal-clear, and more often than not, had pitch-perfect fidelity to the score. And they did it at least partially through autocratic, bullying methods; probably a lot worse than Karajan. I have similar responses to their music-making as I do to HvK - there are some instances where I think the universal sound that was applied to everything (which is how I hear it, even though I haven't heard every single record they made, so I can't pass blanket judgments, etc. etc.) works very well - Karajan's Bruckner and Strauss, Szell's Mozart and Haydn. But for me, this is not because they adapt their style to the specific work, it's because they utilized the sound and approach they were known for, and that sound and approach just happens to work well with those composers. I more often than not find Szell and Reiner mechanical and stiff - and this is how I hear a lot of Karajan too (sometimes it's not so much the "glossy sound" of Karajan's BPO that I find unappealing - it _is_ beautiful - it's the coldness and inflexibility). Now guys like Furtwangler, Bernstein, Kubelik, Walter, Barbirolli, Jochum...these were conductors who were flexible with their conducting and could adapt their styles to the work in question to make it sound fresh and dynamic. Karajan garners the most controversy because he is the best-selling conductor of all time and because his "universal sound" was one that doesn't float everyone's boat. But let's be clear - he is not alone in this at all; and I would even argue his methods were tame compared to some of the American podium dictators. I try to look at this issue as fairly as possible, and my conclusion is that Karajan is at once too exalted and too demonized in many circles. I don't think he is very different at all from what many of his contemporaries did.


----------



## DavidA

seitzpf said:


> I* used to avoid Karajan because of hearing from various people that he consistently altered scores and made whatever piece he conducted about himself rather than the composer*. His podium style and egotistical public persona reinforced my prejudice against him. In my entire CD collection I don't have a single example of Karajan. However, I hear him frequently on the radio and find his music very good. Over the past few years I've started thinking that my antipathy toward conductors who (allegedly) alter scores is actually hypocritical, because certain conductors I like did it (Stokowski, Szell). That said, I still especially appreciate Reiner, Steinberg, and Gielen as true servants of the music, and I prefer them to Karajan because I can hear more detail and nuance in the music besides just finding their interpretations more consistent with my personal tastes. I know Bernstein was great, but most of his interpretations are too intense and dramatic for my tastes, whereas I do enjoy Karajan.


It always amuses me the stories that circulate about Karajan which have no basis in fact. The only way Karajan 'altered' the scores was by not observing repeats but that was a very common practice in the earlier days of LP when playing sides were shorter. In his later recording this he does observe more of the repeats. The other way he altered scores was by making standard cuts in the operatic repertoire but again that was extremely common practice years ago and he was completely unexceptional in that. In fact he was among the 1st to make complete recordings without cuts. So these stories circulate which have little or no basis in fact. As for his podium manner and his vanity, if we exclude every conductor in his generation who was vain, then I fear we will have to clear our record cabinets of most of the recordings!


----------



## nncortes

> I loved Karajan, then went completely cold to him. He didn't really conduct in a lot of those recordings anyway, merely allowing the orchestra to do its own thing. He was a pretty repellent character, an enthusiastic Nazi, and a control freak throughout his career. His name was once on everything, now virtually nothing. Although his conducting became virtually conducting without actually doing anything, or even engaging much, something of the chilling quality of his personality is evident in his recordings in my opinion.


How he actually conducted was more achieved in rehearsals than in concerts. A orchestra of that caliber doesn't need to be told where every beat is, but they do need a unified interpretation rather than 100 different interpretations. He didn't need to conduct much at concerts largely due to the amount of work he put in beforehand, so that is interesting. I think it makes him a great conductor rather than something to be dismissed. If he joined the Nazi party or not, the idea that he was "enthusiastic" about it is absolute nonsense.


----------



## Flamme

Now the thought is formin in my head home come The Movie isnt out yet and who could play Him...


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> I am utterly surprised that a man as intelligent as yourself should give such a one-dimensional answer to this. Worthy of Lebrecht himself I think! You might just as well say that because Bernstein hired an agent who negotiated him fees comparable with a Hollywood film star that he was just in it for the money! The fact is they weren't. They were in it in their very different ways for the music. Karajan happened to be a super-businessman as well as a superb musician so he made a lot of money, much to the envy of many in the world. He also made sure his players were the best paid in the world. But I don't think that is what drove him. Osborn recounts a time when he conducted the European Youth Orchestra at Salzburg and attended the youngsters' summer school, flying there and staying at his own expense and charging no fee whatever. He could, of course, afford it but so could other conductors who turned down the invitation because the youth orchestra could not afford the fee they demanded! Your mention of the Second Viennese School is interesting as Karajan actually put his own money into the project as DG was doubtful whether it would sell. Your companion between HvK and Lenny is to me totally simplistic if you read their respective biographies. The difference between them was that Lenny was an extrovert and HvK an introvert.
> What drove Karajan (apart from the music) was power. Solti said of him: "He was, obviously, a man of genius, capable of absorbing scores like a sponge; his repertoire was enormous. Beyond his musical talent he possessed a tremendous appetite for power - indeed he was probably the greatest musical power broker since Wagner." That I think gets it right.


Relax, David. You only trade my alleged one dimensional view (money) for yours (power). And as Allegro con Brio rightfully says, there were and are quite some power hungry guys (mostly) in the conducting business. Not strange, if you look at the primary task of getting one hundred musicians to play in perfect sync. Not everyone has the natural leadership skills to do this. So there are always plenty of dictators around in the conducting business and Karajan was one of them.

I still think that there was a huge difference in personality between Herbie and Lenny. I actually met Leonard Bernstein once after his Mahler 9 concert in Amsterdam (the one that DG recorded live). It was only short, but he was overwhelming and heartfelt. When I complemented him on the concert, he hugged me. I think this counts more than having read a bio, does it?

As we probably all will agree on, Karajan was at the other end of the spectrum, untouchable. He shared his authoritarian behavior and power hunger with many other conductors. And of course, all the big names were at least decent conductors. But Karajan's commercial skills were quite unique in the business. Usually, the major labels would lead the money side of the business. Karajan was for me the only one to turn that around. So I stay with my view that Karajan of all conductors was unique in his commercial skills. And part of having a commercial talent, is to know pretty well what sells and what not, such as the 2nd Viennese school recordings. The Sound and The sales in one mind, no wonder The Sound would often be described as being glossy and shining. Karajan also was the personification of the Wirtschaftswunder in Classical music in post WWII Germany. He was in the right place at the right time to recover the broken cultural heritage of the BPO and of Berlin and even of Germany. And for an introvert, Karajan was quite a society figure in his days.

Again, this all does not matter for the music he left us, which should just be regarded in its own right. And as I said earlier, it still is extremely wide available, being repacked, remastered and reissued again and again to this day. Inescapable and unique.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Relax, David. You only trade my alleged one dimensional view (money) for yours (power). And as Allegro con Brio rightfully says, there were and are quite some power hungry guys (mostly) in the conducting business. Not strange, if you look at the primary task of getting one hundred musicians to play in perfect sync. Not everyone has the natural leadership skills to do this. So there are always plenty of dictators around in the conducting business and Karajan was one of them.
> 
> I still think that there was a huge difference in personality between Herbie and Lenny. I actually met Leonard Bernstein once after his Mahler 9 concert in Amsterdam (the one that DG recorded live). It was only short, but he was overwhelming and heartfelt. When I complemented him on the concert, he hugged me. I think this counts more than having read a bio, does it?
> 
> As we probably all will agree on, Karajan was at the other end of the spectrum, untouchable. He shared his authoritarian behavior and power hunger with many other conductors. And of course, all the big names were at least decent conductors. But Karajan's commercial skills were quite unique in the business. Usually, the major labels would lead the money side of the business. Karajan was for me the only one to turn that around. So I stay with my view that Karajan of all conductors was unique in his commercial skills. And part of having a commercial talent, is to know pretty well what sells and what not, such as the 2nd Viennese school recordings. The Sound and The sales in one mind, no wonder The Sound would often be described as being glossy and shining. Karajan also was the personification of the Wirtschaftswunder in Classical music in post WWII Germany. He was in the right place at the right time to recover the broken cultural heritage of the BPO and of Berlin and even of Germany. And for an introvert, Karajan was quite a society figure in his days.
> 
> Again, this all does not matter for the music he left us, which should just be regarded in its own right. And as I said earlier, it still is extremely wide available, being repacked, remastered and reissued again and again to this day. Inescapable and unique.


I assure you I'm quite relaxed and it's you who seems to be getting worked up! I never know why you must project your own feelings on to other people. Just what you said was one sided and inaccurate. Yes Karajan was a society figure but only as much as it suited him. Bernstein loved being among people. As someone said - Lenny loved everyone and wanted everyone to love him. It was a personality thing of course. Giving you a hug was quite in line with what I've read about him and doesn't give you any particular insight into the man. That was just Lenny. He was all for giving everyone hugs. He was overwhelming and heartfelt with everyone. Karajan was an introvert and didn't give anything away unless it was under his control.
Karajan wanted to be u touchable and only have relationships on his terms. Lenny wanted to love and be loved.personality thing. Lenny used music in his desire to be loved and adored. Karajan in his desire for power. I would say that for both money was a secondary issue


----------



## Knorf

One thing Bernstein gets a pass for, and shouldn't: he sexually assaulted young men all the time, and would try to destroy a young career, with a smile on his face, if he felt spurned. He was practically the Harvey Weinstein of the New York City Classical music scene, except with young men. I know some of those men, one in particular very well, and he is still deeply scarred from the experience. Part of the problem, is that you couldn't say anything at all about it, or your career would be ruined. No one would listen.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> I assure you I'm quite relaxed and it's you who seems to be getting worked up! I never know why you must project your own feelings on to other people. Just what you said was one sided and inaccurate. Yes Karajan was a society figure but only as much as it suited him. Bernstein loved being among people. As someone said - Lenny loved everyone and wanted everyone to love him. It was a personality thing of course. Giving you a hug was quite in line with what I've read about him and doesn't give you any particular insight into the man. That was just Lenny. He was all for giving everyone hugs. He was overwhelming and heartfelt with everyone.* Karajan was an introvert and didn't give anything away unless it was under his control.*
> Karajan wanted to be u touchable and only have relationships on his terms. Lenny wanted to love and be loved.personality thing. Lenny used music in his desire to be loved and adored. Karajan in his desire for power. I would say that for both money was a secondary issue


I think this is an important aspect that shouldn't be neglected or taken as pure authoritarian behaviour. He was a quite typical introvert. If I recall correctly then he even said that he is less exhausted after conducting four hours of Wagner than after participating at a dinner. Sadly cannot find the source anymore.


----------



## DavidA

Post deleted.........


----------



## millionrainbows

All these critics are just jealous of him, because he was handsome, had that beautiful shock of silver hair combed-back like a movie star, driving a sports car on the autobahn, or posing for an album shoot in front of a Lear jet...he did what he had to do to succeed, whether it pleased everyone or not. Don't you wish you had the same kind of drive? no, you don't...you'll just sit back in your listening chair, letting life pass you by, while the real men are out there actually conducting music, seducing young men, doing whatever the hell they wanted to do before all this political correctness set in, taking all the fun out of living in this dreary 21st century...


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

I'm not really a cork sniffer, but I've been listening to his Mozart - Requiem for 30 years and love it.


----------



## HenryPenfold

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


----------



## HenryPenfold

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


----------



## HenryPenfold

annaw said:


> Yeah, from what I've read, it was the 1940 _Die Meistersinger_ in Berlin where Bockelmann, who was supposed to sing Sachs, missed his entry apparently because he was drunk. Karajan was blamed for the mistake because he conducted without the score (great logic).


I can't remember the source but, I read that Karajan had not yet learnt to read music at this point, so there was no point to have a score in front of him. The chap came in late because he was not concentrating, or something.


----------



## Knorf

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I'm not really a cork sniffer, but I've been listening to his Mozart - Requiem for 30 years and love it.


If you like it, never let anyone convince you that you shouldn't.


----------



## wkasimer

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The simple case is that Karajan made his name largely on mass production of reliable interpretations in good sound.


Although in retrospect, the sound wasn't that good. As someone who worked in a US record store in the 70s, it was partly a matter of the quality of the vinyl - the American labels pressed pretty crappy LP's, and those from Europe were considerably better. HvK also recorded for what was considered a high class label, and people not very familiar with or sophisticated about music would gravitate toward the DG bins.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Fair enough. I have so many memories of cramming for finals and listening to it!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

BachIsBest said:


> I don't think anyone is disputing that Karajan was good at marketing himself. I would dispute that he was in it for the money; no one who chose "conductor" as their career choice is in it for the money. You only do and succeed at that sort of thing because you are genuinely passionate about it. I'm not disputing that there was a financial component but miserly people who care mainly about money have never, and will never, become conductors. If you want evidence just look at how much he promoted Sibelius early in his career when he was less well established and Sibelius was largely unpopular. Like any great artist, Karjan genuinely cared about the quality of his art.
> 
> Obviously, there is a Karajan sound. There is also a Furtwängler sound. And a Toscanini sound. Conductors had a certain style. Did Karajan subsume music to match his style more than some other conductors: perhaps. I'm not sure how this makes him "commercialised".





wkasimer said:


> Although in retrospect, the sound wasn't that good. As someone who worked in a US record store in the 70s, it was partly a matter of the quality of the vinyl - the American labels pressed pretty crappy LP's, and those from Europe were considerably better. HvK also recorded for what was considered a high class label, and people not very familiar with or sophisticated about music would gravitate toward the DG bins.


I can't speak for vinyl in the 70s. But the DG, EMI, and Decca remasters are competitive with many modern "late digital" recordings. DG's Hi-res Karajan Tchaikovsky cycle, for instance, is stupendous.


----------



## Manxfeeder

annaw said:


> He was a quite typical introvert. If I recall correctly then he even said that he is less exhausted after conducting four hours of Wagner than after participating at a dinner. Sadly cannot find the source anymore.


Wow. If that's an accurate quote, now I can completely relate to him.


----------



## Knorf

MatthewWeflen said:


> DG's Hi-res Karajan Tchaikovsky cycle, for instance, is stupendous.


That it is!

ETA: the pretentious big Karajan/Strauss box on Blu Ray is in stupendous sound as well. The Bruckner also, for sure. All of 'em, really, the '62 Beethoven cycle as well.



Manxfeeder said:


> Wow. If that's an accurate quote, now I can completely relate to him.


Me, too!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Knorf said:


> That it is!
> 
> ETA: the pretentious big Karajan/Strauss box on Blu Ray is in stupendous sound as well. The Bruckner also, for sure. All of 'em, really, the '62 Beethoven cycle as well.
> 
> Me, too!


I have them all, and I heartily agree. The Blu-Ray Ring Cycle is also superb. My personal favorite is the '77 Beethoven cycle Blu-Ray.

Anyway, I can't see much of a criticism based on sound quality. My classical deep dive was started with the Karajan 80s box set. Even for early digital they sound great. Alpensinfonie is wondrous.


----------



## Knorf

That is a truly great Alpensinfonie. I'm not sure any other recording is competitively in the running!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Knorf said:


> That is a truly great Alpensinfonie. I'm not sure any other recording is competitively in the running!


Yup, it's a heck of a performance - the first digital record ever, if I remember right? But the Kempe/Dresden sure gives it a run for its money!


----------



## rice

I was deeply impressed by the glorious sound of Karajan conducting Tchaikovsky's piano concerto no.1. That iconic intro was so beautiful and it started my love of classical music. 

He was consistent with his own style, which suits some music better and some not perfectly well. Many musicians do too but it's a problem only when it comes to Karajan? 

I don't see a problem with his success. His musical skill made him a good conductor so the business opportunities appeared. He happened to possess the business skill to take those opportunities, why not? I bet most musicians want a large audience AND be successful. No sane person would deliberately live a less successful life just to make a moving biography.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> One thing Bernstein gets a pass for, and shouldn't: he sexually assaulted young men all the time, and would try to destroy a young career, with a smile on his face, if he felt spurned. He was practically the Harvey Weinstein of the New York City Classical music scene, except with young men. I know some of those men, one in particular very well, and he is still deeply scarred from the experience. Part of the problem, is that you couldn't say anything at all about it, or your career would be ruined. No one would listen.


I'm going to take your word for it that you're not just making this up. But wow, what a let down. If this is true, and I'm assuming it is, I've just lost a lot of respect for one of my musical heroes.


----------



## AeolianStrains

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I'm not really a cork sniffer, but I've been listening to his Mozart - Requiem for 30 years and love it.


I used to love this, too. It was in fact the first recording of the Requiem I listened to in earnest. This is some 20 years ago. But I just grew out of it. I started to really pay attention to the individual instruments, to the quality of the sound, etc. I dunno, it's good, yes, but I haven't had an urge to listen to it for years.


----------



## Machiavel

When Karajan or other conductors for the most part conducts I still listen and feel the composer.

When I hear Bernstein I only hear him. As he ever conducts a Mahler symphony because I have yet to listen to him where its just him and the composer intentions disappear.

Someone said no conductor goes there for the fame, power and money. oh yeah. strange it fits 100% with gergiev. Putin'S friend.

I dont think he would conduct is all the above was not


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yup, it's a heck of a performance - the first digital record ever, if I remember right? But the Kempe/Dresden sure gives it a run for its money!


Yes, the Kempe/Dresden is wonderful. I have that Strauss Box on EMI, and I definitely still pull it off the shelf when I want something different from Strauss than Karajan.



flamencosketches said:


> I'm going to take your word for it that you're not just making this up. But wow, what a let down. If this is true, and I'm assuming it is, I've just lost a lot of respect for one of my musical heroes.


I'm not making this up, I'm afraid. I would never do that. I want to think the best of Bernstein, too, but, well, he was only human. Behaving that way wasn't held in such contempt in his day, but it should very much be held so moving forward. I'm not trying to give Bernstein a pass, here.

And, to be fair, Bernstein in many other ways was indeed a great humanitarian. And there's no question he was a great musician, one of the best. He was complex, just like Karajan.

Sorry to be the one to drop this news on you. There were whispers about this for years (as there were with many conductors) before I heard a totally credible first-hand account from a victim, so I didn't think I would be breaking some big secret.


----------



## Eusebius12

Knorf said:


> One thing Bernstein gets a pass for, and shouldn't: he sexually assaulted young men all the time, and would try to destroy a young career, with a smile on his face, if he felt spurned. He was practically the Harvey Weinstein of the New York City Classical music scene, except with young men. I know some of those men, one in particular very well, and he is still deeply scarred from the experience. Part of the problem, is that you couldn't say anything at all about it, or your career would be ruined. No one would listen.


What about Levine?


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> Yes, the Kempe/Dresden is wonderful. I have that Strauss Box on EMI, and I definitely still pull it off the shelf when I want something different from Strauss than Karajan.
> 
> I'm not making this up, I'm afraid. I would never do that. I want to think the best of Bernstein, too, but, well, he was only human. Behaving that way wasn't held in such contempt in his day, but it should very much be held so moving forward. I'm not trying to give Bernstein a pass, here.
> 
> And, to be fair, Bernstein in many other ways was indeed a great humanitarian. And there's no question he was a great musician, one of the best. He was complex, just like Karajan.
> 
> Sorry to be the one to drop this news on you. There were whispers about this for years (as there were with many conductors) before I heard a totally credible first-hand account from a victim, so I didn't think I would be breaking some big secret.


Oddly I couldn't find anything on it from a cursory internet search. I'd expect now's about the time people would start coming forward about it, as we're seeing conductors like Levine and Dutoit facing allegations.


----------



## Knorf

Eusebius12 said:


> What about Levine?


There were whispers about Levine for decades, an open secret, one much worse than most, since his included alleged acts against under age victims.



flamencosketches said:


> Oddly I couldn't find anything on it from a cursory internet search. I'd expect now's about the time people would start coming forward about it, as we're seeing conductors like Levine and Dutoit facing allegations.


Leonard Bernstein died in 1990. Levine and Dutoit have, or rather would have had, continuing active careers.

Also, the alleged assaults in Bernstein's case were not remotely as criminal as those of Levine.

In any case, I think my friend sees no point in pursuing action again someone who died thirty years ago, especially such an idol and legend of American music. But if he writes an autobiography someday... (My friend is a very well-known composer.)


----------



## Rogerx

I am surprised that people just can't control them self. Continue without all this personal things .
PLEASE.


----------



## Guest

Knorf said:


> There were whispers about Levine for decades, an open secret, one much worse than most, since his included alleged acts against under age victims.
> 
> Leonard Bernstein died in 1990. Levine and Dutoit have, or rather would have had, continuing active careers.
> 
> Also, the alleged assaults in Bernstein's case were not remotely as criminal as those of Levine.
> 
> In any case, I think my friend sees no point in pursuing action again someone who died thirty years ago, especially such an idol and legend of American music. But if he writes an autobiography someday... (My friend is a very well-known composer.)


Actually, I have the huge biographical tome on Bernstein from Humphrey Burton. It draws a picture of a man who, at many times, was very unpleasant - but there was never a suggestion his behaviour was unlawful. I gave it to my non-musical sister to read and she handed it back to me saying "he wasn't very nice". But I loved his talent, passion, intellect and inspirational pedagogy.

What's wrong with Karajan? He conducted with his eyes closed!!


----------



## adriesba

HenryPenfold said:


> I can't remember the source but, I read that Karajan had not yet learnt to read music at this point, so there was no point to have a score in front of him. The chap came in late because he was not concentrating, or something.


How can one conduct without knowing how to read music?


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> How can one conduct without knowing how to read music?


He knew most musics from studying and.... when it's good in your head, viola.






Kathleen Battle/Karajan - Voices of Spring 1987 Vienna New Year's Concert

Watch how he's keeping the orchestra in control, fascinating.


----------



## adriesba

I just don't understand how one could conduct through _Die Meistersinger _of all things without knowing how to read music. I understand that you can conduct without a score, but doesn't that come after having performed the work before and reading the score to know where all the tempo changes are and knowing the piece inside and out after all that?


----------



## Becca

I have posted this in the past but if you haven't seen it, I suggest that you watch and listen to the views of someone who grew up in the Karajan era and who became one of his successors at the BPO...






Note that this was originally published on the Berlin Philharmonic's site.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

adriesba said:


> How can one conduct without knowing how to read music?


Yeah, this seems ridiculous. He was a piano prodigy as a child and played for more than a decade with professional instruction before his teacher told him to take up conducting. The notion that he did not learn to read music at any point in this period is ludicrous.

His explanation was that he had a photographic memory for scores and that closing his eyes helped him visualize the music that he had memorized, and allowed him to hear with greater precision. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> I just don't understand how one could conduct through _Die Meistersinger _of all things without knowing how to read music. I understand that you can conduct without a score, but doesn't that come after having performed the work before and reading the score to know where all the tempo changes are and knowing the piece inside and out after all that?


 You have your answers,


----------



## Froggy27

Hello, I am new to this place. I love listening to classical music. I usually practice classical when I am meditating. When I journal, I always think of moonlight sonata. One of my favorites. I think that classical music can make this world a better place. Just hearing your thoughts and answers to everyday life makes me a happy person. Thank you for listening!


----------



## Knorf

Let's clear up a few things, shall we.

First of all, it is not true that Karajan could not read music..

Karajan began studying piano quite early, and in fact was considered something of a prodigy. Do you know anyone who teaches piano, without teaching how to read music?

At age 8, in 1916, Karajan began studies at the _Universität Mozarteum Salzburg_ with Franz Ledwinka (piano), Franz Zauer (harmony), and Bernhard Paumgartner (composition and chamber music). He remained there until 1916. How often do you suppose the Mozarteum doesn't teach its pupils how to read music?

In 1926, he began studies at the _Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien_, studying piano with Josef Hofmann and conducting with Alexander Wunderer and Franz Schalk. Do you suppose this incredibly famous music school in Vienna also does not teach their students how to read music?

Karajan had his first conducting gig as _Kapellmeister_ at the Stadttheater in Ulm. Do you suppose they would hire someone who could not read music to be a _Kapellmeister_? Or that anyone who could not would on any level be able to do that job?

_OF COURSE Karajan could read music._ It's a bit shocking how some people in this thread just swallowed that claim without skepticism much less a little investigation.



Christabel said:


> Actually, I have the huge biographical tome on Bernstein from Humphrey Burton. It draws a picture of a man who, at many times, was very unpleasant - but there was never a suggestion his behaviour was unlawful.


Oh! You read a _book_, you say? Huge, you say? Oh, _and_ biographical? Wow.

You're right, that totally invalidates what I was told _first hand_ from a friend who was one of Bernstein's victims. Oh, excuse me, one of his alleged victims.

Hang on. NO IT DOESN'T.

Look, I'm no lawyer. I do not know the extent to which Bernstein's harassing actions and sexual assault of young men would be something a prosecutor would take up now. Certainly no one would have then. But I do know very similar behavior towards women, compared to what my friend described to me, has rightfully cost some men their jobs and careers.

I read up on Dutoit's situation, and unless I'm misreading things, he is not being prosecuted. But he very rightly lost his career. In my opinion, from what I was told, Bernstein's actions were of a similar nature to Dutoit's, except being directed towards young men.



> What's wrong with Karajan? He conducted with his eyes closed!!


Oh, yeah, you're totally right. Crucify him!


----------



## Froggy27

I think the music industry would be a lot more open minded if we took the greats into consideration. You know?


----------



## Guest

Knorf said:


> Let's clear up a few things, shall we.
> 
> First of all, it is not true that Karajan could not read music..
> 
> Karajan began studying piano quite early, and in fact was considered something of a prodigy. Do you know anyone who teaches piano, without teaching how to read music?
> 
> At age 8, in 1916, Karajan began studies at the _Universität Mozarteum Salzburg_ with Franz Ledwinka (piano), Franz Zauer (harmony), and Bernhard Paumgartner (composition and chamber music). He remained there until 1916. How often do you suppose the Mozarteum doesn't teach its pupils how to read music?
> 
> In 1926, he began studies at the _Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien_, studying piano with Josef Hofmann and conducting with Alexander Wunderer and Franz Schalk. Do you suppose this incredibly famous music school in Vienna also does not teach their students how to read music?
> 
> Karajan had his first conducting gig as _Kapellmeister_ at the Stadttheater in Ulm. Do you suppose they would hire someone who could not ready music to be a _Kapellmeister_? Or that anyone who could not would on any level be able to do that job?
> 
> _OF COURSE Karajan could music._ It's a bit shocking how some people in this thread just swallowed that claim without skepticism much less a little investigation.
> 
> Oh! You read a _book_, you say? Huge, you say? Oh, _and_ biographical? Wow.
> 
> You're right, that totally invalidates what I was told _first hand_ from a friend who was one of Bernstein's victims. Oh, excuse me, one of his alleged victims.
> 
> Hang on. NO IT DOESN'T.
> 
> Look, I'm no lawyer. I do not know the extent to which Bernstein's harassing actions and sexual assault of young men would be something a prosecutor would take up now. Certainly no one would have then. But I do know very similar behavior towards women, compared to what my friend described to me, has rightfully cost some men their jobs and careers.
> 
> I read up on Dutoit's situation, and unless I'm misreading things, he is not being prosecuted. But he very rightly lost his career. In my opinion, from what I was told, Bernstein's actions were of a similar nature to Dutoit's, except being directed towards young men.
> 
> Oh, yeah, you're totally right. Crucify him!


It was an ironic joke; nobody is going to be crucified for having closed eyes.

But you need to take the rest of the week off; clearly it's getting you down.


----------



## Rogerx

> I think the music industry would be a lot more open minded if we took the greats into consideration. You know?





Froggy27 said:


> Hello, I am new to this place. I love listening to classical music. I usually practice classical when I am meditating. When I journal, I always think of moonlight sonata. One of my favorites. I think that classical music can make this world a better place. Just hearing your thoughts and answers to everyday life makes me a happy person. Thank you for listening!


I think you better start a new thread .
Welcome anyway .


----------



## Knorf

Christabel said:


> It was an ironic joke; nobody is going to be crucified for having closed eyes.


One never knows.



> But you need to take the rest of the week off; clearly it's getting you down.


Don't patronize me. In fact, I'm an excellent mood.


----------



## Froggy27

: I did not know that. During those times, it was difficult to get noticed because of what Hitler did to this planet.


----------



## Rogerx

Froggy27 said:


> : I did not know that. During those times, it was difficult to get noticed because of what Hitler did to this planet.


One rule...... politics / religion are not allowed in main threads.


----------



## Guest

I'm new here, but after reading this disgusting thread, I'm having regrets about ever signing up.


----------



## DavidA

HenryPenfold said:


> I can't remember the source but, I read that Karajan had not yet learnt to read music at this point, so there was no point to have a score in front of him. The chap came in late because he was not concentrating, or something.


You are mixing up two stories actually. It was the bass in Rosenkavelier in Karajan's first operatic job who couldn't read music so HvK had to teach him the role from scratch. Amazing how many of these stories get bent


----------



## DavidA

adriesba said:


> How can one conduct without knowing how to read music?


Of course Karajan could read music. In fact the amazing thing was he could remember whole scores and absorb them just by looking at them. Solti remarks on this. It is what he could conduct with his eyes shut because he could see the music going along in front of him without a score. He depended on of course who he was conducting. If he was conducting a youth Orchestra then it was all eyes open but if it was the Berlin Philharmonic who knew him and the score backwards it was very different. Sometimes we don't realise that Karajan came up the hard way with a very provincial Opera house in which he had to even raise and lower the curtain himself and take a very poor ensemble and try and make it better. In fact he used to say a young conductor doesn't learn his trade by giving him a first-rate orchestra. Give him a fifth rate orchestra and see if he can make it into a third rate orchestra


----------



## DavidA

Becca said:


> I have posted this in the past but if you haven't seen it, I suggest that you watch and listen to the views of someone who grew up in the Karajan era and who became one of his successors at the BPO...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note that this was originally published on the Berlin Philharmonic's site.


This is a good interview. Bits of it have been published out of context to try and rubbish HvK whereas as Rattle is trying to give a fair assessment. HvK was of course a man of his time and I think the last sentence is relevant: :"He wouldn't have wanted an imitator. He was far too smart for that!"


----------



## DavidA

Christabel said:


> Actually, I have the huge biographical tome on Bernstein from Humphrey Burton. It draws a picture of a man who, at many times, was very unpleasant - but there was never a suggestion his behaviour was unlawful. I gave it to my non-musical sister to read and she handed it back to me saying "he wasn't very nice". But I loved his talent, passion, intellect and inspirational pedagogy.
> 
> What's wrong with Karajan? He conducted with his eyes closed!!


I have the new addition of Burtons biography of Bernstein. He adds a new introduction which you should read.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Knorf said:


> One never knows.
> 
> Don't patronize me. In fact, I'm an excellent mood.


Wow, you are truly getting on steam in this thread!


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Wow, you are truly getting on steam in this thread!


Is a certain 'pot' calling a certain 'kettle' ? :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan

Fugal said:


> I'm new here, but after reading this disgusting thread, I'm having regrets about ever signing up.


This is just the dark side of TC. Any Karajan or Wagner thread tends to derail, wonder why. But if you skip these, TC can be really worth your while. You might give it a try:tiphat:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Fugal said:


> I'm new here, but after reading this disgusting thread, I'm having regrets about ever signing up.


Tell us why!

Also, have you been on the internet before? This is pretty mild.


----------



## Knorf

MatthewWeflen said:


> Also, have you been on the internet before? This is pretty mild.


Try going to a Ford forum and insist that switching to aluminum bodies and frames on the F-series was idiotic. Or say it was genius. Either way, watch them sparks fly. Better duck, though.

ETA: I may have let my enthusiasm for sarcasm get away from me. If so, I humbly apologize.


----------



## adriesba

Oh boy, I guess I had no idea of what I was getting into when I started this thread... :lol:
.
.
.
.
.
.
It is only a little more than 2 days old and already has over 140 posts on 10 pages. While in my mind, the case was settled on the first page. :lol:

I'm not sure what we are discussing at this point, lol.

To those new members who have found this thread, please don't let this one bother you. You'll like other parts of the forum much better. :lol:


----------



## Flamme

I find this thread very usefull still compared 2 #%ap u find on internetz...It has many tributaries, but they all come 2gether in the end, forming a wild and illuminous river...


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This is just the dark side of TC. Any Karajan or Wagner thread tends to derail, wonder why. But if you skip these, TC can be really worth your while. You might give it a try:tiphat:


This thread is not derailing. People just giving opinions which is what TC is about. As fellow music lovers and nature people (hopefully) we should be able to share different opinions or facts about dead artists without falling out!


----------



## adriesba

Flamme said:


> I find this thread very usefull still compared 2 #%ap u find on internetz...It has many tributaries, but they all come 2gether in the end, forming a wild and illuminous river...


Many, many, MANY tributaries, lol. :lol:


----------



## adriesba

DavidA said:


> This thread is not derailing. People just giving opinions which is what TC is about. As fellow music lovers and nature people (hopefully) we should be able to share different opinions or facts about dead artists without falling out!


I just worry that it will get overly political or become a breeding ground for rumors.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> I just worry that it will get overly political or become a breeding ground for rumors.


Only you can ask if it this thread can be closed, before it's getting even more out of hand.


----------



## Enthusiast

Knorf said:


> One thing Bernstein gets a pass for, and shouldn't: he sexually assaulted young men all the time, and would try to destroy a young career, with a smile on his face, if he felt spurned. He was practically the Harvey Weinstein of the New York City Classical music scene, except with young men. I know some of those men, one in particular very well, and he is still deeply scarred from the experience. Part of the problem, is that you couldn't say anything at all about it, or your career would be ruined. No one would listen.


That is quite a set of allegations! Aside from the report from your friend, what evidence did you find to support or lead you to these conclusions?


----------



## DavidA

adriesba said:


> I just worry that it will get overly political or become a breeding ground for rumors.


I hope that as knowledgeable people (as a group) we can quash rumours with facts. For example, the fact is that Karajan joined the Nazi party. The allegation that he rose to the top of the pile of Nazi conductors during WW2 (which was made after his death) was totally untrue. In fact he ended up out of favour. Historical facts are therefore welcome. Unfortunately some of them reveal great artists have a dark side.
With Karajan there are no worries about politics as he had no strong (expressed) views outside music apart from telling rude jokes about certain politicians.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> That is quite a set of allegations! Aside from the report from your friend, what evidence did you find to support or lead you to these conclusions?


Yeah, like in the Monica Lewinsky case; isn't there a dress with semen stains or anything?


----------



## Knorf

Enthusiast said:


> That is quite a set of allegations! Aside from the report from your friend, what evidence did you find to support or lead you to these conclusions?


I'm not even the person who is making the allegations, just reporting that there are credible allegations out there, and that I know what I heard from my friend about Bernstein's behavior is true. My friend has zero reason to make anything up like this, and doing so is not in his character at all. He already has a big career, and I'm sure has no desire to seek notoriety. It was also all stuff he told me years ago, before #metoo.

In any case, there have been rumors about Bernstein's behavior towards young men for a very long time in the music world (just as there were for Levine, Dutoit, Domingo...), and I thought that this was more or less common knowledge. I guess not, maybe in part because it was so long ago.

I brought it up because they were a couple posts up thread demonizing Karajan and making Bernstien out to be a saint. I now regret doing so.

It's my friend's story to tell-and that of any others who were victimized by Bernstein-if they wish to tell it. Not mine. I cannot provide any more details without breaking confidences, and naming names and places, and I'm not going to.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ OK. I hadn't heard those rumours before (but had heard those about the others you name). I'll try to Google it to see if I can find out more. I do like Bernstein's conducting a lot but it would disturb me to learn that he abused or exploited his position.


----------



## Heck148

It is well-known that Lenny was a "switch-hitter", he very probably had relationships with Mitropoulos and Copland, among others. Of course he was married, and very devoted to his wife Felicia and his children...
Levine certainly has some sordid chapters in his past, related by close friends...

I don't pay too much attention to musicians/conductors' personal lives when judging their music-making...a lot of people have all sorts of "skeletons in the closet". This includes great artists..try Picasso!!


----------



## Knorf

Indeed. To be fair, just the fact that Bernstein had same-sex relationships at all would have been a huge scandal unto itself, during most of his life, had it been more common knowledge in the broader public.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Indeed. To be fair, just the fact that Bernstein had same-sex relationships at all would have been a huge scandal unto itself, during most of his life, had it been more common knowledge in the broader public.


By many accounts, tho, Lenny almost flaunted it....he could get away with it...Lenny was a pretty brazen character....


----------



## AClockworkOrange

The main reason I’m not a huge Karajan fan was that I heard his ‘80’s Beethoven and the slick “Karajan Sound” was just not to my tastes at all.

I’m still not a fan of his Haydn and Mozart.

Over time, I have grown to like some his recordings - some his Bruckner (though I prefer his Berlin recordings ahead of those from Vienna), more of his Sibelius & Richard Strauss and some of his ‘60’s Beethoven cycle. I don’t mind some of his operas - La Boheme and the few fragments I have heard of his Parsifal.

However, to me Karajan sounded at his best when he had someone to reign in his worst musical impulses. That’s why the main recordings of Karajan’s that I do like are from the earlier parts of his career with the Philharmonia and Walter Legge. I really do think his Philharmonia Beethoven cycle is better than his subsequent recordings.

For much of his repertoire, there are simply other Conductors I much prefer significantly more.

I don’t dislike him as much as I used to musically, in fact I’ve grown to enjoy quite a few of his recordings but he will never be my first choice of Conductor in any work. It’s all subjective ultimately.

As far as he goes as a person, I don’t know enough so I have no opinion there. I’ll focus solely on the music.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> By many accounts, tho, Lenny almost flaunted it....he could get away with it...Lenny was a pretty brazen character....


I think that started in the 1970s or early 80s, when he would show up to parties in mascara and flamboyant clothes. He was pretty closeted early on, it seems to me.


----------



## Guest

Heck148 said:


> It is well-known that Lenny was a "switch-hitter", he very probably had relationships with Mitropoulos and Copland, among others. Of course he was married, and very devoted to his wife Felicia and his children...
> Levine certainly has some sordid chapters in his past, related by close friends...
> 
> I don't pay too much attention to musicians/conductors' personal lives when judging their music-making...a lot of people have all sorts of "skeletons in the closet". This includes great artists..try Picasso!!


Bernstein was certainly not devoted to Felicia; he had many affairs *while he was married to her*, once with Marc Blitzstein for starters. When she died of breast cancer, according to Humphrey Burton (biographer), he felt a sense of relief that he could finally be the person he was. A bit rich when he led a less than clandestine sexual double life.

I agree with you; it's unhelpful to consider private lives when enjoying the artifacts of great cultural figures. Didn't Stradella actually murder somebody?


----------



## NLAdriaan

Knorf said:


> Indeed. To be fair, just the fact that_ (...) _had same-sex relationships at all would have been a huge scandal unto itself, during most of his life, had it been more common knowledge in the broader public.





> I think that started in the 1970s or early 80s, when he would show up to parties in mascara and flamboyant clothes. He was pretty closeted early on, it seems to me.


Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, Say no more....

I don't think you checked out already on the hush-hush about Bruckner. Warning: It might lead you to part with your Bruckner collection, to keep your music closet morally 'clean':angel:

This thread is becoming a gutter


----------



## Knorf

NLAdriaan said:


> Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, Say no more....
> 
> I don't think you checked out already on the hush-hush about Bruckner. Warning: It might lead you to part with your Bruckner collection, to keep your music closet morally 'clean':angel:
> 
> This thread is becoming a gutter


I have no idea what you're on about. It's history that same-sex relationships were persecuted harshly for most of the 20th century, in America as much as anywhere. It's certainly nothing to be proud of, in fact the opposite, and I for one am extraordinarily grateful for all of humanity that most western societies have started seriously moving towards wide acceptance of same-sex relationships and non-binary sexual and gender identity. Such injustice that so many people were persecuted for this!


----------



## Rogerx

NLAdriaan said:


> Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, Say no more....
> 
> I don't think you checked out already on the hush-hush about Bruckner. Warning: It might lead you to part with your Bruckner collection, to keep your music closet morally 'clean':angel:
> 
> This thread is becoming a gutter


I fainted from laughing. :lol:


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, Say no more....
> 
> I don't think you checked out already on the hush-hush about *Bruckner*. Warning: It might lead you to part with your Bruckner collection, to keep your music closet morally 'clean':angel:
> 
> This thread is becoming a gutter


My dear boy, if we are going to require high morals as a requisite of classical musicians (starting with composers) our listening is going to be very limited indeed!

According to John Butt, professor of music at Glasgow University and a Bruckner devotee, Bruckner really was - well, a bit of an oddball. In his diaries, he kept lists of the girls he fancied (usually in their late teens), he had a mania for counting the bricks and windows of buildings, and for counting the numbers of bars in his gargantuan orchestral scores, making sure their proportions were statistically correct. And there were even stranger sides to this kind of behaviour: when his mother died, Bruckner commissioned a photograph of her on her death bed and kept it in his teaching room. He had no image of his mother when she was alive, just this grotesque-seeming token of her death staring out at him as an unsettling memento mori. Butt also recalls accounts of Bruckner having "fingered and kissed the skulls of Beethoven and Schubert" when their corpses were exhumed and moved to a different cemetery; that Bruckner had requested permission to see the skull of a dead cousin (he was refused), and also that of the Emperor Maximilian, whose body was returned to Vienna after his execution in Mexico in 1867.
As far as the teenage girls are concerned it appears that although Bruckner propositioned quite a few for marriage (even into his seventies) things never went any further. So he might still listen to his music with a good conscience.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> My dear boy, if we are going to require high morals as a requisite of classical musicians (starting with composers) our listening is going to be very limited indeed!
> 
> According to John Butt, professor of music at Glasgow University and a Bruckner devotee, Bruckner really was
> *(...CENSORED...) *
> things never went any further. So he might still listen to his music with a good conscience.


*Address unknown*
*No such person*
*Moved*

The actual most morally honorable addressee of your message lives in this forum by the name of Knorf and he already liked your explicit message, so you know where he lives. In the future, such kind of hush-hush may better be exchanged in neutral envelopes through PM. Now that 'we' all know that 'he' knows about the 'scandalous' Bruckner stuff, he can never express his love for Bruckner again on this forum:lol:. Would the 'scandalous truth' about Siegfried Wagner already been known to him, as this will leave another shelve empty:lol: And so on...


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Although I would not term it a gutter, I do think it is fair to say that this thread has derailed.

What's wrong with Karajan, again?


----------



## DavidA

As I say if we are going to pick through the moral improprieties of both composers and performers we are left with somewhat slender pickings. The same applies to the authors of many of the books on our shelves btw!

As for Karajan he found a teen protege in Mutter but his wife, Elliette, was always on hand during discussions with the teen protege!


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> As I say dear boy if we are going to pick through the moral improprieties of both composers and performers we are left with somewhat slender pickings. The same applies to the authors of many of the books on our shelves btw!
> 
> As for Karajan... *(CENSORED)*!


Please stop addressing me with the words 'dear boy' and also stop stalking me on this subject. I used all the available means to make that request clear, but you obviously don't get it. Please go underground with your innuendo into PM territory and leave it there. I am not interested.


----------



## Enthusiast

Heck148 said:


> It is well-known that Lenny was a "switch-hitter", he very probably had relationships with Mitropoulos and Copland, among others. Of course he was married, and very devoted to his wife Felicia and his children...
> Levine certainly has some sordid chapters in his past, related by close friends...
> 
> I don't pay too much attention to musicians/conductors' personal lives when judging their music-making...a lot of people have all sorts of "skeletons in the closet". This includes great artists..try Picasso!!


It is one thing being promiscuous and quite another using his position to obtain sex - with an implied or overt threat for those who don't grant it. I certainly knew he was very promiscuous but have not yet found anything suggesting that he was exploitative or abusive with it. The impression I have formed so far is that he was generally successful in finding casual partners. This may have been unwise in the time of the AIDS pandemic and may have disgusted the homophobic ... but it isn't abuse. Some allegations about Levine's behaviour are that he obtained consent by exploiting his position.


----------



## NLAdriaan

*Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
*
_I would think we all know that by now_


----------



## mrdoc

* What's wrong with Karajan?*

Apart from being dead nothing at all!

He knew what he wanted from the BPO and made sure he got it, he mentored a young fiddle player and she turned out to be one of the top violinists of the day. I could not give a fig for his politics he knew his job and made a very good job of it.


----------



## Rogerx

mrdoc said:


> * What's wrong with Karajan?*
> 
> Apart from being dead nothing at all!
> 
> He knew what he wanted from the BPO and made sure he got it, he mentored a young fiddle player and she turned out to be one of the top violinists of the day. I could not give a fig for his politics he knew his job and made a very good job of it.


Don't forget the V.P. , they loved working with him, they've made some fabulous recordings.


----------



## NLAdriaan

In Berlin, you have the 'Herbert von Karajanstrasse', where the Philharmonie is situated.
In Wien & Salzburg, you have the 'Herbert von Karajanplatz', in Wien next to the Staatsoper.

They all are a bit on the tiny side, but at least a Platz sounds better than a Strasse


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> Don't forget the V.P. , they loved working with him, they've made some fabulous recordings.


Not forgetting the Philharmonia Orchestra. The recordings he made with them were truly groundbreaking for a British Orchestra according to Neville Marriner


----------



## Sad Al

I guess Karajan's - _von_ Karajans 1982 Mahler 9 has been discussed a zillion times? An alpha-male with rare talent in conducting. He would have scared a weakling like me to death. Joining the Nazi party was normal in those days, and a clever career move.


----------



## DavidA

Karajan recorded vivaldi's Four Seasons with the young Mutter and the VPO late in his career. Apparently it was scheduled for the BPO and was expected to be a good moneymaker for them but Karajan's fall out with them meant it went to the VPO. EMI actually got Lord Snowdon to do the photography for the LP covers.









Karajan apparently hated the photographs especially when one wag christened them 'Death and the Maiden'. But that didn't stop EMI using them


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> Karajan recorded vivaldi's Four Seasons with the young Mutter and the VPO late in his career. Apparently it was scheduled for the BPO and was expected to be a good moneymaker for them but Karajan's fall out with them meant it went to the VPO. EMI actually got Lord Snowdon to do the photography for the LP covers.
> 
> View attachment 134205
> 
> 
> Karajan apparently hated the photographs especially when one wag christened them 'Death and the Maiden'. But that didn't stop EMI using them


This is a lovely recording. It is one of the rare Baroque Karajan productions that I enjoy just as much as Pinnock. I for one like the cover, too.


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> ...if we are going to require high morals as a requisite of classical musicians (starting with composers) our listening is going to be very limited indeed!


It's an interesting question, whether, on a personal level to "censor" recordings of musicians with highly questionable pasts, such as Levine, or Wagner.

I personally do not. I admit that when I learned, long ago, that Karajan had been a member of the Nazi party, that certainly gave me pause. But he was cleared by the Austrian denazification board, and had recently died, so I decided to stop caring about it and simply proceed as I had, purchasing his recordings that I liked and steering clear of those I didn't.

And the fact that Hitler adored Bruckner doesn't matter to me at all. That's not Bruckner's fault.

Levine is tougher for me, since he's alive. But his career is over, and some of his recordings are among my favorites, in some cases with repertoire that has limited exposure in recordings, such as Elliott Carter's Variations for Orchestra, or Charles Wuorinen's Eighth Symphony. So, I still listen to Levine's recordings. And after, there are a couple score other musicians in those recordings as well.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

I pay very little attention to musicians and what kind of people they are and what their political views were/are - at least the dead ones. Some times I care about the living ones, if it is egregious enough. I like punk rock but don't give a damn for most of their politics.

Karajan was a brilliant director. I have many recordings from him and other than a recording of Mozart's Requiem and woodwind concertos, I enjoy all of them. What happened between him and the Nazis doesn't interest me. A lot of people in that time did things that they probably wouldn't have done in different circumstances. Unless he was a key player in the Holocaust, I withhold judgment.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> It's an interesting question, whether, on a personal level to "censor" recordings of musicians with highly questionable pasts, such as Levine, or Wagner.
> 
> I personally do not. I admit that when I learned, long ago, that Karajan had been a member of the Nazi party, that certainly gave me pause. But he was cleared by the Austrian denazification board, and had recently died, so I decided to stop caring about it and simply proceed as I had, purchasing his recordings that I liked and steering clear of those I didn't.
> 
> And the fact that Hitler adored Bruckner doesn't matter to me at all. That's not Bruckner's fault.
> 
> Levine is tougher for me, since he's alive. But his career is over, and some of his recordings are among my favorites, in some cases with repertoire that has limited exposure in recordings, such as Elliott Carter's Variations for Orchestra, or Charles Wuorinen's Eighth Symphony. So, I still listen to Levine's recordings. And after, there are a couple score other musicians in those recordings as well.


Levine did great Brahms and Schumann that I couldn't do without.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Although I would not term it a gutter, I do think it is fair to say that this thread has derailed.
> 
> What's wrong with Karajan, again?


The answer is there is nothing wrong with Karajan.

He made beautiful recordings in reliable, conventional interpretations ideal for mass consumption. People who avoid his recordings do so because of what's missing from them, not for what's "wrong" with them. For some of us a certain honest vulnerability is necessary for true artistic communication. Karajan's pursuit of glossy perfection misses this.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The answer is there is nothing wrong with Karajan.
> 
> He made beautiful recordings in reliable, conventional interpretations ideal for mass consumption. People who avoid his recordings do so because of what's missing from them, not for what's "wrong" with them. For some of us a *certain honest vulnerability* is necessary for true artistic communication. Karajan's pursuit of glossy perfection misses this.


And how do you define 'honest vulnerability'? Mistakes in the horns?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> And how do you define 'honest vulnerability'? Mistakes in the horns?


Maybe vinyl crackles. Possibly funereal tempii. Definitely miking as far away as possible, preferably in the back row of the hall.

Really, though, we should be nice. This is the most diplomatic Bramsianhorn has been in a while about Herbie. He refrained from comparing him to McDonalds this time 

I have noticed in BH's language frequent use of *emotional *descriptors when referring to his favorite interpretations as well as his less favored ones. I think perhaps this is an indication of differing emphasis, and I wonder if it applies to Karajan fans vs. Karajan detractors.

Frequently, when listening to one of my many Karajan recordings, I luxuriate in the *sensory *experience, the texture of strings, the blast of horns, the beauty. I do indeed have emotional reactions to some of the music (R. Strauss' Metamorphosen springs to mind, as well as Beethoven's 6th and the slow movements of the 3rd and 7th), but maybe this is not the primary thing I'm seeking, which is why I am more receptive to Karajan's recordings than BH. I don't "feel" anything particular beyond a strong admiration for order and beauty when listening to Karajan's Haydn and Mozart. I am an aesthete and a sensualist, I guess is a way to put it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

DavidA said:


> And how do you define 'honest vulnerability'?


Not speaking for Brahmsianhorn, but I define it as a willingness to take risks and look beyond the surface of the music. By "taking risks" I mean making decisions that some would call "artistic license" in order to illuminate the score with one's deeply personal vision. Often this takes the form of little things that take time to detect (as it did for me...when I started out with CM and lurked on this forum I had no idea why everyone was obsessed with comparing recordings of the same work) - a phrase that the conductor instructs his strings to dig a little deeper into, a subtle rhythmic inflection that heightens the impact of a particular moment, a willingness to be flexible with tempi, balances, and overall presentation so that it sounds like real humans making real music that really means something, rather than just going through the motions and regurgitating the score. Now, by that last phrase, I'm NOT at ALL saying that's what Karajan always does - there are many other conductors who seem to be content with presenting the score cleanly, professionally, and without any personality (N. and P. Jarvi, Haitink, Chailly, Abbado just off the top of my head). Compared to these guys, I actually like what Karajan did because he had a distinctive style - a smooth, polished, luxurious, instantly recognizable sound. It's just not a sound that often appeals to me, and I think that Karajan's music-making does not have "honest vulnerability" because it is overly concerned with perfection and beauty of sound to the extent that deeper meaning and personality is lost. Give me a cracked horn note, a flubbed entrance, inferior sound quality any day if it means that the performance is riskier, more improvisatory, less polished, more raw...because for me, making art is about admitting our limitations that we will NEVER be perfect - so let's embrace the imperfection and make something meaningful and impactful out of it. Nowadays any computer can perfectly recreate a symphony note-for-note with all the proper dynamics, tempi, etc. What a computer cannot do is _interpret_ a symphony, and this is why we play music and why us as classical nerds are so interested in comparing performances.

There are so many examples of composers themselves playing their works differently from the score - Vaughan Williams conducted his 4th at a breakneck tempo, Debussy and Ravel's piano rolls differ radically from what they wrote, Mahler even congratulated a conductor who deviated from his own instructions. This is the art of experimentation, refinement, and risk-taking. This does NOT mean that I "like" performances with wrong notes, etc. (conductors/orchestras wouldn't be playing professionally if they constantly made mistakes); it's just that I see them as a minor tradeoff (such as occasionally happens in Furtwangler's recordings) for an overall product that satisfies me with its boldness and originality. Maybe that does mean I'm an emotional music-listener - I prioritize feeling rather than perfection. There's nothing at all wrong with prioritizing fidelity to the score, precise execution, good sound quality, etc. etc. - my personal criteria are just different. I used to be focused on all those things, but once I heard Furtwangler's Bayreuth B9 it transported me into another realm, like hearing Beethoven for the first time, and it opened my eyes to my silliness in automatically dismissing such performances. In fact, I think it was Brahmsianhorn (when I was a lurker) who piqued my interest about Furtwangler with his passionate advocacy on this forum, and who inspired me to try him out. Now he's my favorite conductor. BH, I certainly owe a tip of the cap to you:tiphat:


----------



## mrdoc

DavidA said:


> Karajan recorded vivaldi's Four Seasons with the young Mutter and the VPO late in his career. Apparently it was scheduled for the BPO and was expected to be a good moneymaker for them but Karajan's fall out with them meant it went to the VPO. EMI actually got Lord Snowdon to do the photography for the LP covers.
> 
> View attachment 134205
> 
> 
> Karajan apparently hated the photographs especially when one wag christened them 'Death and the Maiden'. But that didn't stop EMI using them


*One of the first CDs that I purchased was Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto with the BPO under Karajan and featuring Mutter, coupled with the Bruch on Deutsche Grammophen. *


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Maybe vinyl crackles. Possibly funereal tempii. Definitely miking as far away as possible, preferably in the back row of the hall.
> 
> Really, though, we should be nice. This is the most diplomatic Bramsianhorn has been in a while about Herbie. He refrained from comparing him to McDonalds this time
> 
> I have noticed in BH's language frequent use of *emotional *descriptors when referring to his favorite interpretations as well as his less favored ones. I think perhaps this is an indication of differing emphasis, and I wonder if it applies to Karajan fans vs. Karajan detractors.
> 
> Frequently, when listening to one of my many Karajan recordings, I luxuriate in the *sensory *experience, the texture of strings, the blast of horns, the beauty. I do indeed have emotional reactions to some of the music (R. Strauss' Metamorphosen springs to mind, as well as Beethoven's 6th and the slow movements of the 3rd and 7th), but maybe this is not the primary thing I'm seeking, which is why I am more receptive to Karajan's recordings than BH. I don't "feel" anything particular beyond a strong admiration for order and beauty when listening to Karajan's Haydn and Mozart. I am an aesthete and a sensualist, I guess is a way to put it.


Wow, bingo. Excellent post.

Yes, I have always described Karajan as a sensual conductor, not an emotional one. It works best in Richard Strauss IMO, as well as Bruckner. Impressive sound.

But for example, how can Beethoven or Mahler ever be less than an emotional experience? It's inherent in the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Now he's my favorite conductor. BH, I certainly owe a tip of the cap to you:tiphat:


Maybe my favorite Furtwangler Beethoven recording is this one below. He nails the drama and angst. Who cares about mere precision and sound? Beethoven himself was said to have been incredibly sloppy playing his own music. His goal was to move, even disturb, the audience.

This is my own video compilation, incidentally.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Wow, bingo. Excellent post.
> 
> Yes, I have always described Karajan as a sensual conductor, not an emotional one. It works best in Richard Strauss IMO, as well as Bruckner. Impressive sound.
> 
> *But for example, how can Beethoven or Mahler ever be less than an emotional experience? It's inherent in the music.*


I think that's exactly the point-it's inherent in the music. Beethoven or Mahler doesn't need an emotional conductor to bring out the emotionality in the music, it's already there. I suspect this is part of the appeal of conductors like Karajan or even Boulez for some people. Thank you for putting it like that.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> I think that's exactly the point-it's inherent in the music. Beethoven or Mahler doesn't need an emotional conductor to bring out the emotionality in the music, it's already there. I suspect this is part of the appeal of conductors like Karajan or even Boulez for some people. Thank you for putting it like that.


As a performer myself, I absolutely disagree. If it's inherent in the music, it's required of the performer. Otherwise you are projecting your own aesthetic onto the composer.

I have performed Arvo Part for example in a completely stale, emotionless way, as is required by the music, and I enjoy it. But of course one would never perform Romantic music that way. It's not meant to be performed that way.


----------



## superhorn

Like other great conductors Karajan was and remains highly controversial , with passionate admirers and detractors who have sometimes been downright vitriolic .
Many accused him of achieving an orchestra sound that was so smooth and glossy as to deprive the music of character ,concentrating on polish to the point of neglecting other musical virtues .
They accused him of being a control freak who manipulated the music for his own egotistical reasons . 
But I've never felt that way about his performances and recordings . Yes, the Berlin Philharmonic was trained under him to give highly polished performances and was an orchestra with unsurpassed virtuosity and richness of sound . 
In fact, Karajan's performances were often highly incisive rather than being too smooth . Rich and smooth not TOO rich and smooth . 
Karajan was wonderful in Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner , Wagner, Richard Strauss . 
and even Mahler . He also had considerable flair for French composers such as Debussy, Ravel, and Berlioz . 
In opera, he was one of the supreme Wagnerians , and he was born to conduct the operas of Richard Strauss . His interpretations of the operas of Verdi and Puccini were considered "unidiomatic " by some critics , but he often brought fresh insights into the music which you would never get from hack routninier Italian opera conductors . Ditto with French operas such as Carmen and Pelleas & Melisande .


----------



## MatthewWeflen

mrdoc said:


> *One of the first CDs that I purchased was Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto with the BPO under Karajan and featuring Mutter, coupled with the Bruch on Deutsche Grammophen. *


That's a great disc, to be sure. Very good playing by ASM, and before her more syrupy phase as a performer. Great accompaniment by the BPO.


----------



## BachIsBest

It seems that Karajan is a distinct less conductor who regurgitated out piece after piece of music for commercial profit while making no distinct artistic choices of his own.

On the other hand, he is a conductor with a terrible, instantly recognisable, beautiful, sound (but the sound is totally non-unique; it is, of course, purely distinctive only through how utterly generic it is) that he applies to every composer regardless of that composer's vision even modifying the intent of the composer or changing the score if he has to.

Of course, it really goes without saying, that there's nothing wrong with producing shallow recordings with no emotion (but are highly beautiful but still emotionless because perception of beauty and emotional response are totally distinct) because that's what those with inferior taste want and so it provides them with a natural outlet.

In any case, Karajan is an artless conductor for so many very coherent reasons.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> As a performer myself, I absolutely disagree. If it's inherent in the music, it's required of the performer. Otherwise you are projecting your own aesthetic onto the composer.
> 
> I have performed Arvo Part for example in a *completely stale, emotionless way, as is required by the music, and I enjoy it. *But of course one would never perform Romantic music that way. It's not meant to be performed that way.


This is completely wrong. I don't think you understand Pärt's music at all. It is an example of what you might call "projecting your own aesthetic onto the composer"


----------



## Knorf

Emotion in music is a complex topic. To begin with, it must be understood emotion is something we humans create ourselves by listening and associating, and it not something that is carried intrinsically by the music. Quoth Stravinsky:



Igor Stravinsky said:


> ...music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, a psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc. Expression has never been an inherent property of music.


He's quite right.

To illustrate, consider the art musics of non-Western cultures, say, Beijing Opera. To listeners well acquainted with the idiom, it is intensely passionate, and effectively seems to express all kinds of emotions. To the unprepared listener used only to Western music, it usually seems bizarre and unintelligible. This because our emotional reaction to music is the result of experiential accretions. If you didn't know Beijing Opera, you wouldn't be able to discern what was sad, what was happy, etc., without someone telling you. But if you knew it well, then you would.

There's no doubt that music taps into our emotions somehow, but it must be remembered that this is something we have to do with it ourselves; emotion in music is associative. Music prods our emotional centers, but we do the rest.

This why you'll never, ever get people to agree on which performance in the most emotional, especially in a blind listening. To one person, Conductor A is the most expressive one, and Conductor B is the emotionless robot (as if a human could really do that.) To someone else, it's the reverse.

Boulez has the reputation of being an "emotionless" conductor. Indeed, he showed very little emotions from the podium, no extraneous movements whatsoever, and certainly no histrionic contortions like Bernstein. But, here's thing, I can play a Boulez recording of, say, Mahler 3 blind for someone, and they'll inevitably say it's full of emotion. Why? Because it's freaking Mahler! The musical tropes he created are extremely well-known from having been copied by innumerable film composers. In his lifetime, people thought Mahler's music was bizarre.

This because there's no such thing as mind-reading. Whatever the composer was feeling when they wrote the music, whatever the performer is feeling when performing, has little to no direct cause and effect with what the listener feels. As a performer, I have been very passionate about music that some in the audience didn't connect to at all, and I've played music I consciously hated and had people practically weeping over it. (I'll make an exception for opera, when in a lot of cases acting is required.)

All professional musicians have to be able to perform music they detest well enough that no one would know. That's part of why it's called being a professional.

More to the point, what is actually going on in the mind of the performer in the moment of performance is for the most part pretty uninteresting. Mostly, it's just a lot of counting. And there's listening carefully, concentrating hard, on everything happening with one's collaborators. There's not time or mental space to get wrapped up in your own feelings, because if you do, that's when you get distracted and screw it up.


----------



## Rogerx

MatthewWeflen said:


> That's a great disc, to be sure. Very good playing by ASM, and before her more syrupy phase as a performer. Great accompaniment by the BPO.


Whatever you try, the bashing goes on by others.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> This is completely wrong. I don't think you understand Pärt's music at all. It is an example of what you might call "projecting your own aesthetic onto the composer"


You don't think Part is emotionally reticent compared to the Romantics??? It doesn't mean the music does not elicit emotions. But certainly with Part you must approach it in a more clinical, exacting way, with no vibrato. It is quite challenging actually.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Maybe my favorite Furtwangler Beethoven recording is this one below. He nails the drama and angst. Who cares about mere precision and sound? Beethoven himself was said to have been incredibly sloppy playing his own music. His goal was to move, even disturb, the audience.
> 
> This is my own video compilation, incidentally.


This is a very nice Coriolan. I mean, it's no Karajan, but it's still top flight ;-)

I like the percussion. Honestly, it shares many features with a Karajan/BPO rendition, which makes sense, given that many of the performers are likely the same. I find Karajan's Coriolan dramatic and angsty, as well.


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> It seems that Karajan is a distinct less conductor who regurgitated out piece after piece of music for commercial profit while making no distinct artistic choices of his own.
> 
> On the other hand, he is a conductor with a terrible, instantly recognisable, beautiful, sound (but the sound is totally non-unique; it is, of course, purely distinctive only through how utterly generic it is) that he applies to every composer regardless of that composer's vision even modifying the intent of the composer or changing the score if he has to.
> 
> Of course, it really goes without saying, that there's nothing wrong with producing shallow recordings with no emotion (but are highly beautiful but still emotionless because perception of beauty and emotional response are totally distinct) because that's what those with inferior taste want and so it provides them with a natural outlet.
> 
> In any case, Karajan is an artless conductor for so many very coherent reasons.


Interesting so Karajan is a 'distinct less' conductor with a 'terribly instantly recognisable beautiful sound'. Seems to me you're just making up which are totally contradictory there. Are these things you've heard from critics?
And of course the hoary old chestnut that those who like Karajan recordings are those 'with inferior taste' (to your superior taste of course)! 
And to say that 'Karajan is an artless conductor for so many coherent reasons' when you can't give a coherent reason yourself (apart from the fact you somehow have superior taste to the more lowly of us beings) is a bit contradictory to me.


----------



## DavidA

I’m always most amused when I hear this old chestnut of Karajan’s performances being planned and perfect and totally controlled because If you listen to the musicians who actually played the under him that obviously wasn’t the case. Just listen to the Rattle interview. The work was apparently done in the rehearsal and in the performance it was like a giant chamber music performance as he allowed the musicians to express themselves. Now this is what I have heard them say in interview about him and his performances so I’m never quite saying where these people who say everything was totally controlled are coming from. Of course there are many ways in which he was a control freak but apparently in performance it was very different when he was making music with an orchestra he trusted like the BPO


----------



## DavidA

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I used to be focused on all those things, but once I heard Furtwangler's Bayreuth B9 it transported me into another realm, like hearing Beethoven for the first time, and it opened my eyes to my silliness in automatically dismissing such performances. In fact, I think it was Brahmsianhorn (when I was a lurker) who piqued my interest about Furtwangler with his passionate advocacy on this forum, and who inspired me to try him out. Now he's my favorite conductor. BH, I certainly owe a tip of the cap to you:tiphat:


I have heard wonderful things about the Furtwangler Beethoven nine but when I eventually got a recording of it and heard it I must confess I was far less than blown away. The conductor himself was disappointed with the performance and it is certainly not the best he ever did. In my mind the recording is murky and the performance doesn't compare at all with Karajan's 1977 BPO. Don't get me wrong I went to the thing really wanting to love it but I really found it disappointing


----------



## NLAdriaan

Well, now that we are in calmer waters, it could be time to wrap up the OP.

*What's wrong with HvK?*

The first thing that comes to mind is that it obviously is almost impossible to discuss the pros & cons of HvK (or Wagner for that matter), without things start to go wrong. Whoever else may be smashed to pieces in this forum, without a lot of hassle. But when the two 'Germans' (Yes I know, HvK was of Austrian-Armenian-Greek descent) are concerned, things get out of hand. 
Why? 
Thinking about it, the common theme might be the relations with the Nazi's. But again, around Furtwangler there are much less emotions in play when it comes to this subject.

The second thing is that both W and HvK were absolute autocrats, absolute power obsessed and dominant in their game. This can be heard in their legacy. The most interesting thing is that they also both won the battle. Most dictators and autocrats usually fall down and loose, somewhere in their career, much to the relief of everyone. But this didn't happen to W and HvK, they got the opportunity to play their game till the end and succeeded. It probably helped that W got Bayreuth from a mecenas and HvK got life appointment with the BPO, which made both independent from others and gave them the opportunity to do what they did. Also, both kept their personalities to themselves, which any successful autocrat does.

I also think that for one person, absolute power and control might be admired and for another it might be offsetting, hence the controversy?

Yes, there were many more autocrats in music, especially among conductors. I read about Szell in this thread, but he obviously didn't have a German top notch orchestra at his disposal. Mahler in his day can also be seen as a quite dominant force. But we know so much about Mahler's neurotic personality to see a hero in him, he was shortlived and had a dramatic life and of course he was already posthumously punished by the Nazi's, who forbid his 'Jewish' music to be played.

And how about the music?
The entire legacy of W is about endless heroism and control, from the storylines upto the Festspiele. W created a complete new world. As for HvK, his total control of the orchestra is mentioned here all the time, how he got there, can be heard in the video interview with Simon Rattle, who in diplomatic terms gives a description of how things went with the orchestra, total dictatorship and unthinkable in this day.

So, these two people are controversial.

To me, I like W's music a lot, but I am not absorbed by it. I like a few of Karajan's recordings, but for me his only desert island recording is Mahler 9 live from '82. In my view most of his recordings lack a form of personality, you know, the technicolor thing. Mahler 9 live is an exception, as it is extraordinary rough and intense, as if the colour-filter was removed.

And I don't admire autocrats.

I look forward to read your eventual opinions, as I also read the ones before with interest.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, now that we are in calmer waters, it could be time to wrap up the OP.
> 
> *What's wrong with HvK?*
> 
> The first thing that comes to mind is that it obviously is almost impossible to discuss the pros & cons of HvK (or Wagner for that matter), without things start to go wrong. Whoever else may be smashed to pieces in this forum, without a lot of hassle. But when the two 'Germans' (Yes I know, HvK was of Austrian-Armenian-Greek descent) are concerned, things get out of hand.
> Why?
> Thinking about it, the common theme might be the relations with the Nazi's. But again, around Furtwangler there are much less emotions in play when it comes to this subject.
> 
> The second thing is that both W and HvK were absolute autocrats, absolute power obsessed and dominant in their game. This can be heard in their legacy. The most interesting thing is that they also both won the battle. Most dictators and autocrats usually fall down and loose, somewhere in their career, much to the relief of everyone. But this didn't happen to W and HvK, they got the opportunity to play their game till the end and succeeded. It probably helped that W got Bayreuth from a mecenas and HvK got life appointment with the BPO, which made both independent from others and gave them the opportunity to do what they did. Also, both kept their personalities to themselves, which any successful autocrat does.
> 
> I also think that for one person, absolute power and control might be admired and for another it might be offsetting, hence the controversy?
> 
> Yes, there were many more autocrats in music, especially among conductors. I read about Szell in this thread, but he obviously didn't have a German top notch orchestra at his disposal. Mahler in his day can also be seen as a quite dominant force. But we know so much about Mahler's neurotic personality to see a hero in him, he was shortlived and had a dramatic life and of course he was already posthumously punished by the Nazi's, who forbid his 'Jewish' music to be played.
> 
> And how about the music?
> The entire legacy of W is about endless heroism and control, from the storylines upto the Festspiele. W created a complete new world. As for HvK, his total control of the orchestra is mentioned here all the time, how he got there, can be heard in the video interview with Simon Rattle, who in diplomatic terms gives a description of how things went with the orchestra, total dictatorship and unthinkable in this day.
> 
> So, these two people are controversial.
> 
> To me, I like W's music a lot, but I am not absorbed by it. I like a few of Karajan's recordings, but for me his only desert island recording is Mahler 9 live from '82. In my view most of his recordings lack a form of personality, you know, the technicolor thing. Mahler 9 live is an exception, as it is extraordinary rough and intense, as if the colour-filter was removed.
> 
> *And I don't admire autocrats.
> *
> I look forward to read your eventual opinions, as I also read the ones before with interest.


I assume you don't admire many conductors in the Karajan and pre-Karajan era as most of them were autocrats? The conductor who wasn't an autocrat tended to be the exception rather than the rule

You talk about the control of an orchestra whereas that is the conductor's job. Of course how he achieves that today is by a different route to what the likes of Verdi (another autocrat in front of an orchestra) Mahler or Toscanini achieves it. But it is still his(or today her) goal.


----------



## annaw

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, now that we are in calmer waters, it could be time to wrap up the OP.
> 
> *What's wrong with HvK?*
> 
> The first thing that comes to mind is that it obviously is almost impossible to discuss the pros & cons of HvK (or Wagner for that matter), without things start to go wrong. Whoever else may be smashed to pieces in this forum, without a lot of hassle. But when the two 'Germans' (Yes I know, HvK was of Austrian-Armenian-Greek descent) are concerned, things get out of hand.
> Why?
> Thinking about it, the common theme might be the relations with the Nazi's. But again, around Furtwangler there are much less emotions in play when it comes to this subject.
> 
> The second thing is that both W and HvK were absolute autocrats, absolute power obsessed and dominant in their game. This can be heard in their legacy. The most interesting thing is that they also both won the battle. Most dictators and autocrats usually fall down and loose, somewhere in their career, much to the relief of everyone. But this didn't happen to W and HvK, they got the opportunity to play their game till the end and succeeded. It probably helped that W got Bayreuth from a mecenas and HvK got life appointment with the BPO, which made both independent from others and gave them the opportunity to do what they did. Also, both kept their personalities to themselves, which any successful autocrat does.
> 
> I also think that for one person, absolute power and control might be admired and for another it might be offsetting, hence the controversy?
> 
> Yes, there were many more autocrats in music, especially among conductors. I read about Szell in this thread, but he obviously didn't have a German top notch orchestra at his disposal. Mahler in his day can also be seen as a quite dominant force. But we know so much about Mahler's neurotic personality to see a hero in him, he was shortlived and had a dramatic life and of course he was already posthumously punished by the Nazi's, who forbid his 'Jewish' music to be played.
> 
> And how about the music?
> The entire legacy of W is about endless heroism and control, from the storylines upto the Festspiele. W created a complete new world. As for HvK, his total control of the orchestra is mentioned here all the time, how he got there, can be heard in the video interview with Simon Rattle, who in diplomatic terms gives a description of how things went with the orchestra, total dictatorship and unthinkable in this day.
> 
> So, these two people are controversial.
> 
> To me, I like W's music a lot, but I am not absorbed by it. I like a few of Karajan's recordings, but for me his only desert island recording is Mahler 9 live from '82. In my view most of his recordings lack a form of personality, you know, the technicolor thing. Mahler 9 live is an exception, as it is extraordinary rough and intense, as if the colour-filter was removed.
> 
> And I don't admire autocrats.
> 
> I look forward to read your eventual opinions, as I also read the ones before with interest.


I really like both Wagner and Karajan, but it's not because they were autocrats, it's because of the music. Wagner's music, its themes and philosophy runs much deeper than "endless heroism and control". Don't you think that if that was the case Valhalla wouldn't be destructed and Wotan would reign happily for eternity? Siegfried, Siegmund and Tristan wouldn't die and Lohengrin would stay? The essence of the characters is not just the heroism but they often convey a certain philosophical or psychological idea or theory. German Romanticism had some topics that can be seen in pretty much all of the arts. Like 'eternal feminine' that is most famously known from Goethe's _Faust_ - Wagner has mentioned a similar idea in his letters, he has actually mentioned the term itself. He shouldn't be defined through his antisemitic views which were only a small part of his ideas and thoughts. There's a reason why people still cannot understand all of the things Wagner wanted to convey through his operas. Because of their complexity so many musicologists have devoted more or less their whole career to analyse e.g the _Ring_. It's not just endless heroism and control, at least in my opinion...

When it comes to Karajan, I don't actually see how his somewhat autocratic take of things would affect the sound or the way I perceive it? It could be argued that Toscanini was even worse, but you don't neglect a good recording just because the conductor was autocratic. In fact, I think the majority of conductors are autocratic to some extent, even nowadays. You have to be because your interpretations is the one that will be judged and you're the one who has to lead the whole orchestra. I totally understand that you don't admire Karajan's recordings on the basis of music.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You don't think Part is emotionally reticent compared to the Romantics??? It doesn't mean the music does not elicit emotions. But certainly with Part you must approach it in a more clinical, exacting way, with no vibrato. It is quite challenging actually.


Pärt's music is an extremely passionate, spiritually ecstatic experience. There many less vibrato than say Brahms, but that does not make it okay for the music to be played in a "stale, emotionless way". If a conductor ever told you that, he must have been a hack with no deep understanding of the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> This is a very nice Coriolan. I mean, it's no Karajan, but it's still top flight ;-)
> 
> I like the percussion. Honestly, it shares many features with a Karajan/BPO rendition, which makes sense, given that many of the performers are likely the same. I find Karajan's Coriolan dramatic and angsty, as well.


My goodness, what a stark night and day difference!!! Thanks for posting this. It summarizes the entire thread.

The outer shell of the Furtwangler performance is there with Karajan. Like I have always said, a generalized, reliable interpretation. But Karajan completely misses the freedom and spontaneity that are the key to Furtwangler's greatness. With Karajan everything is controlled and manicured, placed exactly as are the hairs on his head. And the edges are softened, just as many have said. Entrances that with Furtwangler are appropriately hard and jolting are softened and "beautified" with Karajan. Again, imposing his own aesthetic onto Beethoven. This is the answer to the question of why Karajan is not often people's favorite interpretation.

I feel sorry for the BPO musicians who had to transition from Furtwangler's wonderful openness and freedom to Karajan's control and constraint. He co-opted this incredible orchestra and sound that Furtwangler had built and mass marketed it. There is something grotesque about it. Karajan did not build on Furtwangler's legacy. He commercializied it. He took a tasty, well-crafted burger and turned it into McDonald's.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My goodness, what a stark night and day difference!!! Thanks for posting this. It summarizes the entire thread.
> 
> The outer shell of the Furtwangler performance is there with Karajan. Like I have always said, a generalized, reliable interpretation. But Karajan completely misses the freedom and spontaneity that are the key to Furtwangler's greatness. With Karajan everything is controlled and manicured, placed exactly as are the hairs on his head. And the edges are softened, just as many of said. Entrances that with Furtwangler are appropriately hard and jolting are softened and "beautified" with Karajan. Again, imposing his own aesthetic onto Beethoven. This is the answer to the question of why Karajan is not often people's favorite interpretation.
> 
> I feel sorry for the BPO musicians who had to transition from Furtwangler's wonderful openness and freedom to Karajan's control and constraint. He co-opted this incredible orchestra and sound that Furtwangler had built and mass marketed it. There is something grotesque about it. Karajan did not build on Furtwangler's legacy. He commercializied it. He took a tasty, well-crafted burger and turned it into McDonald's.


I bet the BPO musicians weren't sorry when they got the vastly higher salaries and the recording perks with Karajan! :lol:

What you are saying is, of course, highly subjective but you present it as if it was objective. You might just as well say that Furtwangler is imposing his own aesthetic on Beethoven, which of course he was. I have no problem with you preferring Furtwangler (I enjoy his performance too btw) but for goodness sake don't make it seem like something objective because it isn't. 
'This is the answer to the question of why Karajan is not often people's favourite interpretation.' That is a bit of a contradictory statement as Karajan sold around 200 million recordings isn't it? He is not YOUR favourite interpretation for the reasons you mention. That is fine. But realise that your opinion (and my opinion) is like everyone else - subjective. A lot of other people (maybe to their everlasting shame in your opinion) felt differently.


----------



## Manxfeeder

flamencosketches said:


> Pärt's music is an extremely passionate, spiritually ecstatic experience. There many less vibrato than say Brahms, but that does not make it okay for the music to be played in a "stale, emotionless way". If a conductor ever told you that, he must have been a hack with no deep understanding of the music.


At a risk of starting topic drift, the absolute best performance I ever heard of the Cantus in Memoriam, Benjamin Britten was with the LA Chamber Orchestra, where they played it expressively. The descending notes sounded like teardrops. It was very moving. 
I wish more of his pieces were played that way.


----------



## Knorf

Manxfeeder said:


> At a risk of starting topic drift...


I certainly won't be throwing any stones in _that_ particular glass house!

As for Karajan, as we can all see there are will always be divergent opinions about him. That's fine, of course. Saying his work is not to one's taste is not really something to argue about. _De gustibus non est disputandum!_

What I don't like is people mischaracterizing what he did. To some extent, this is subjective. But there are some things that are facts, or not.

The worst is when someone comes along and implies, or even insists, that their caviling and castigation of Karajan inherently demonstrates their own superior taste. That is utter nonsense and deserves whatever opprobrium it receives.

Warning: incoming sarcasm. The more sensitive should turn away now.

"Artless" conductor, huh? Sure, that _must be_ why the *Berliner Philharmoniker*, a self-governing orchestra, gave him a lifetime contract! The liked him 'cause he sucked! Or maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Oh, and that must be why the *Wiener Philharmoniker*, another self-governing orchestra, made him their most common guest conductor. Maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Or, they must have liked him 'cause he sucked! The fact that he was one of the most sought-after conductors anywhere in Europe, was 'cause he sucked! All of the musicians, Berlin, Vienna, etc. Either they were duped, or maybe they liked him 'cause he sucked! Clearly sucking is the path to success. Except to those of superior taste, of course. Yes.

I'm convinced. I'm tossing all of my Karajan recording into the street!


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> My goodness, what a stark night and day difference!!! Thanks for posting this. It summarizes the entire thread.
> 
> The outer shell of the Furtwangler performance is there with Karajan. Like I have always said, a generalized, reliable interpretation. But Karajan completely misses the freedom and spontaneity that are the key to Furtwangler's greatness. With Karajan everything is controlled and manicured, placed exactly as are the hairs on his head. And the edges are softened, just as many have said. Entrances that with Furtwangler are appropriately hard and jolting are softened and "beautified" with Karajan. Again, imposing his own aesthetic onto Beethoven. This is the answer to the question of why Karajan is not often people's favorite interpretation.
> 
> I feel sorry for the BPO musicians who had to transition from Furtwangler's wonderful openness and freedom to Karajan's control and constraint. He co-opted this incredible orchestra and sound that Furtwangler had built and mass marketed it. There is something grotesque about it. Karajan did not build on Furtwangler's legacy. He commercializied it. He took a tasty, well-crafted burger and turned it into McDonald's.


Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't perceive a "stark night and day difference." I find both recordings engaging, with minor differences. The only stark difference is in the quality of the recording. Perhaps if we had Furtwangler recordings that weren't created via early 20th century electric potato-graph, we could better evaluate the "stark night and day differences."

As far as your (risible) metaphor goes, I think the better formulation would be "Karajan took a tasty, well-crafted burger with Limburger cheese and turned it into a tasty, well-crafted burger with Muenster cheese."


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> .......Perhaps if we had Furtwangler recordings that weren't created via *early 20th century electric potato-graph*, we could better evaluate the "stark night and day differences."
> 
> As far as your (risible) metaphor goes, I think the better formulation would be "Karajan took a tasty, well-crafted burger with Limburger cheese and turned it into a tasty, well-crafted burger with Muenster cheese."


Lol, that recording comment really tickled me, Matt. Some would argue that HvK took a burger that sometimes tasted great and sometimes tasted bad and turned it into a a consistenly excellent burger. Maybe Bhs's McDonalds comparison wasn't that far out?


----------



## BachIsBest

DavidA said:


> Interesting so Karajan is a 'distinct less' conductor with a 'terribly instantly recognisable beautiful sound'. Seems to me you're just making up which are totally contradictory there. Are these things you've heard from critics?
> And of course the hoary old chestnut that those who like Karajan recordings are those 'with inferior taste' (to your superior taste of course)!
> And to say that 'Karajan is an artless conductor for so many coherent reasons' when you can't give a coherent reason yourself (apart from the fact you somehow have superior taste to the more lowly of us beings) is a bit contradictory to me.


I feel you missed the facetious intent of my post. I was making light of the contradictory criticism being levelled against Karajan in this thread. The perils of the internet are great. I in no sense belive I have superior taste and Karajan is actually one of my favourite conductors.


----------



## Barbebleu

Knorf said:


> I certainly won't be throwing any stones in _that_ particular glass house!
> 
> As for Karajan, as we can all see there are will always be divergent opinions about him. That's fine, of course. Saying his work is not to one's taste is not really something to argue about. _De gustibus non est disputandum!_
> 
> What I don't like is people mischaracterizing what he did. To some extent, this is subjective. But there are some things that are facts, or not.
> 
> The worst is when someone comes along and implies, or even insists, that their caviling and castigation of Karajan inherently demonstrates their own superior taste. That is utter nonsense and deserves whatever opprobrium it receives.
> 
> Warning: incoming sarcasm. The more sensitive should turn away now.
> 
> "Artless" conductor, huh? Sure, that _must be_ why the *Berliner Philharmoniker*, a self-governing orchestra, gave him a lifetime contract! The liked him 'cause he sucked! Or maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Oh, and that must be why the *Wiener Philharmoniker*, another self-governing orchestra, made him their most common guest conductor. Maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Or, they must have liked him 'cause he sucked! The fact that he was one of the most sought-after conductors anywhere in Europe, was 'cause he sucked! All of the musicians, Berlin, Vienna, etc. Either they were duped, or maybe they liked him 'cause he sucked! Clearly sucking is the path to success. Except to those of superior taste, of course. Yes.
> 
> I'm convinced. I'm tossing all of my Karajan recording into the street!


What part has the sarcasm?:lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

BachIsBest said:


> I feel you missed the facetious intent of my post. I was making light of the contradictory criticism being levelled against Karajan in this thread. The perils of the internet are great. I in no sense belive I have superior taste and Karajan is actually one of my favourite conductors.


This is a Poe's Law situation. 


> "Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I don't perceive a "stark night and day difference." I find both recordings engaging, with minor differences. The only stark difference is in the quality of the recording. Perhaps if we had Furtwangler recordings that weren't created via early 20th century electric potato-graph, we could better evaluate the "stark night and day differences."
> 
> As far as your (risible) metaphor goes, I think the better formulation would be "Karajan took a tasty, well-crafted burger with Limburger cheese and turned it into a tasty, well-crafted burger with Muenster cheese."


You cannot tell that Furtwangler is pacing the tempo liberally and "in the moment" as opposed to Karajan who is keeping a more or less conventional tempo throughout?

To me it is similar to when a concertmaster or choir director prepares a group for a performance conducted by someone else. Karajan is maintaining the same basic design as Furtwangler but conducting in a straight forward manner, whereas Furtwangler is following the inspiration of the moment. In other words, Furtwangler is taking risks, sometimes leading to inaccuracy. Karajan is not. Furtwangler is interpreting in the moment, Karajan is carefully following a preordained script. The two men had different priorities even though they agreed on the basic architecture of the works they conducted. This is why I say that Karajan is for those who want conventional, traditional readings in good sound. Furtwangler and others are for those who require more than that.

Also the forte entrances sound different. Karajan abhored ugly sounds. For Furtwangler it was a question of what best served the idea behind the music. If you listen to both recordings from 4:00 to 4:30 you can hear and even see this. Furtwangler allows the forte entrances to be hard and jolting, even ugly. Karajan with an elegant circular upward motion of his baton softens the edge of the chord so that it is strong but not too jolting, not too hard, not too ugly. That was his aesthetic.


----------



## Flamme

Herbie, taking a look at this topic


----------



## millionrainbows

Knorf said:


> I certainly won't be throwing any stones in _that_ particular glass house!
> 
> As for Karajan, as we can all see there are will always be divergent opinions about him. That's fine, of course. Saying his work is not to one's taste is not really something to argue about. _De gustibus non est disputandum!_
> 
> What I don't like is people mischaracterizing what he did. To some extent, this is subjective. But there are some things that are facts, or not.
> 
> The worst is when someone comes along and implies, or even insists, that their caviling and castigation of Karajan inherently demonstrates their own superior taste. That is utter nonsense and deserves whatever opprobrium it receives.
> 
> Warning: incoming sarcasm. The more sensitive should turn away now.
> 
> "Artless" conductor, huh? Sure, that _must be_ why the *Berliner Philharmoniker*, a self-governing orchestra, gave him a lifetime contract! The liked him 'cause he sucked! Or maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Oh, and that must be why the *Wiener Philharmoniker*, another self-governing orchestra, made him their most common guest conductor. Maybe they're colossal tasteless morons and were duped? Or, they must have liked him 'cause he sucked! The fact that he was one of the most sought-after conductors anywhere in Europe, was 'cause he sucked! All of the musicians, Berlin, Vienna, etc. Either they were duped, or maybe they liked him 'cause he sucked! Clearly sucking is the path to success. Except to those of superior taste, of course. Yes.
> 
> I'm convinced. I'm tossing all of my Karajan recording into the street!


Yes, History (with a capital H) has proven that Karajan is one of the greatest conductors of all time. All else is self-righteous, liberal-minded garbage.


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> I feel you missed the facetious intent of my post. I was making light of the contradictory criticism being levelled against Karajan in this thread. The perils of the internet are great. I in no sense belive I have superior taste and Karajan is actually one of my favourite conductors.


Sorry I missed your intent. As you say, the perils of putting it into stark print. Apologies if I got wrong end of stick.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot tell that Furtwangler is pacing the tempo liberally and "in the moment" as opposed to Karajan who is keeping a more or less conventional tempo throughout?
> 
> To me it is similar to when a concertmaster or choir director prepares a group for a performance conducted by someone else. Karajan is maintaining the same basic design as Furtwangler but conducting in a straight forward manner, whereas Furtwangler is following the inspiration of the moment. In other words, Furtwangler is taking risks, sometimes leading to inaccuracy. Karajan is not. Furtwangler is interpreting in the moment, *Karajan is carefully following a preordained script*. The two men had different priorities even though they agreed on the basic architecture of the works they conducted. This is why I say that Karajan is for those who want conventional, traditional readings in good sound. *Furtwangler and others are for those who require more than that.*
> 
> Also the forte entrances sound different. Karajan abhored ugly sounds. For Furtwangler it was a question of what best served the idea behind the music. If you listen to both recordings from 4:00 to 4:30 you can hear and even see this. Furtwangler allows the forte entrances to be hard and jolting, even ugly. Karajan with an elegant circular upward motion of his baton softens the edge of the chord so that it is strong but not too jolting, not too hard, not too ugly. That was his aesthetic.


The problem is that this does not tally with what the musicians said who worked under Karajan. They were quite insistent that although he often prepared very thoroughly in performance he didn't follow a pre-ordained script. he was more interested they listened to each other. But of course you know better than those professional musicians?
The other point I have no problem with your preferences but please don't keep implying that your preferences are of superior taste to those who disagree with you. These matters are purely subjective and whether you prefer Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan or an HIP freak like Gardiner, The matter always comes down to personal taste. They were all highly competent musicians and to imply that your particular taste is somehow superior to everybody else's simply jars


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You cannot tell that Furtwangler is pacing the tempo liberally and "in the moment" as opposed to Karajan who is keeping a more or less conventional tempo throughout?
> 
> To me it is similar to when a concertmaster or choir director prepares a group for a performance conducted by someone else. Karajan is maintaining the same basic design as Furtwangler but conducting in a straight forward manner, whereas Furtwangler is following the inspiration of the moment. In other words, Furtwangler is taking risks, sometimes leading to inaccuracy. Karajan is not. Furtwangler is interpreting in the moment, Karajan is carefully following a preordained script. The two men had different priorities even though they agreed on the basic architecture of the works they conducted. This is why I say that Karajan is for those who want conventional, traditional readings in good sound. Furtwangler and others are for those who require more than that.
> 
> Also the forte entrances sound different. Karajan abhored ugly sounds. For Furtwangler it was a question of what best served the idea behind the music. If you listen to both recordings from 4:00 to 4:30 you can hear and even see this. Furtwangler allows the forte entrances to be hard and jolting, even ugly. Karajan with an elegant circular upward motion of his baton softens the edge of the chord so that it is strong but not too jolting, not too hard, not too ugly. That was his aesthetic.


Alas, I am a cretinous philistine, and thus Karajan is for me.


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> Alas, I am a cretinous philistine, and thus Karajan is for me.


Fancy a burger, Matt? Take your pick.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> The problem is that this does not tally with what the musicians said who worked under Karajan. They were quite insistent that although he often prepared very thoroughly in performance he didn't follow a pre-ordained script. he was more interested they listened to each other. But of course you know better than those professional musicians?
> The other point I have no problem with your preferences but please don't keep implying that your preferences are of superior taste to those who disagree with you. These matters are purely subjective and whether you prefer Furtwangler, Toscanini, Karajan or an HIP freak like Gardiner, The matter always comes down to personal taste. They were all highly competent musicians and to imply that your particular taste is somehow superior to everybody else's simply jars


There is nothing wrong with preferring conventional, safe tempos. You yourself questioned why Furtwangler shifts the tempo so much in Beethoven. It is not to everyone's taste. I prefer more risk-taking. To each his own. It's no different than conservative vs liberal politics.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> Fancy a burger, Matt? Take your pick.
> 
> View attachment 134293


If I'm going to eat a McDonald's sandwich, I think I'll go with a Filet 'O Fish. Big Macs are too Bernsteinian for me, all dripping with saucy pathos. As a Karajan fan, I prefer my sandwiches somewhat bland, a standardized take on something done better by artisans in coastal towns.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is nothing wrong with preferring conventional, safe tempos. You yourself questioned why Furtwangler shifts the tempo so much in Beethoven. It is not to everyone's taste. I prefer more risk-taking. To each his own. It's no different than conservative vs liberal politics.


Funny when Karajan's Beethoven first came out it was criticised for being too fast compared with the likes of Klemperer. But you're going on your superior run again. They were not conventional safe tempi at all. In fact you can say Furtwangler's tempi are more 'safe'. Sorry but your political comparisons don't wash either. But if it makes you happy to think your subjective opinions are somehow objective......


----------



## adriesba

After listening to the love duet on Karajan's studio _Tristan und Isolde_, I don't understand how Karajan could be considered an emotionless conductor. 

Here we are getting posts so fast that I can't read them all. Did I read that correctly?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

adriesba said:


> After listening to the love duet on Karajan's studio _Tristan und Isolde_, I don't understand how Karajan could be considered an emotionless conductor.
> 
> Here we are getting posts so fast that I can't read them all. Did I read that correctly?


Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!


----------



## adriesba

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh, well, you know, Karajan is fine, I guess, but only because you've never heard Pispott Q. Jakhasz with the Podunkton Symphony Radio Philharmonic in a 1947 semaphore broadcast, only released in Japan in a limited pressing on reel-to-reel, never released on CD. Believe me, that performance makes Karajan sound like moldy sodden rubbish!


Lol. That seems to be it. :lol:

I've mostly only been pleased with anything I have heard conducted by Karajan. A lot of what people here are saying genuinely surprises me. It completely befuddles me!


----------



## Heck148

I've avoided this thread because it seemed to be getting a bit contentious, and the original topic obscured...anyway -
I tend to agree with Brahmsianhorn in regards to von Karajan's conducting, and I've stated my position on numerous occasions...
there is nothing "wrong" with Karajan....he produced good-sounding recordings, consistently, over a wide range of repertoire...he was no doubt a giant in the musical world....I don't really concern myself too much with his personal life, political affiliations, administrative activities, etc, etc...

For me, I just don't care for that "monotonous" [monotone-ous] sound that he constantly sought from his orchestras...He always stressed beauty - he liked a nice, smooth, round sound, no sharp edges, no hard percussive accents, no hard brilliance, no edgy, brilliant sounds...at times he might allow some of these qualities to trickle in, but generally in very reduced amounts, and far less than other conductors, whose conducting I much prefer..It's almost as if he was constantly trying to fit the music into his concept of sound, rather than fitting the sound into the concept of the music.

Karajan was definitely a control freak, [many conductors are] no doubt about it, he knew exactly what he wanted, he exercised that control and got that sound consistently...his technique of conducting with his eyes closed is regarded by many musicians as a flawed method - eye contact is one of the main channels of communication between conductor and orchestra musician. it's very hard to enter confidently, play with_ molto espressivo_ when the conductor won't even look at you...still, many listeners like that style and approach..that's perfectly fine...I'm not one of them.

I prefer conductors who let the orchestra play, encourage extremes of dynamic range, articulation, accent, legato, etc..conductors who let the orchestra "swing for the fences", put out 100%. 
Some time ago, I posted on "Conductors" thread, [IIRC] - there are/were conductors who were very much control freaks, and those who favored spontaneity - on the control end - Karajan, Celi, perhaps Leinsdorf are some examples. Szell, also - interesting case, because he could be the ultimate control freak, but at times he could really let the orchestra rip, go for broke, let it all out....funny story about Szell - he claimed that his Cleveland Orchestra <<_started rehearsing where other orchestras finished_>> ...he came under criticism from some quarters that his performances "_lacked spontaneity_" - Szell's response at an ensuing rehearsal <<_Gentlemen, we will now rehearse the spontaneity_!!>> :lol::lol:
Anyway, on the other end of the spectrum, we get those conductors who cherished spontaneity, and thrived on it - Munch, Beecham, Knappertsbusch are some well-known examples, Munch, esp...he didn't like rehearsing....
I agree with those who claim that Karajan's recordings lacked spontaneity...it's all worked out in advance, don't do anything differently. Karajan even said that <<work out all the details, the big things will take care of themselves>> I don't think I agree...his performances are decent, the sound quality is good, they are "safe", you are unlikely to get a terrible product...but for me, it just doesn't work....I need to hear the excitement, the effort, the energy, that "on the spot", "at the edge" electricity...


----------



## BachIsBest

Heck148 said:


> I prefer conductors who let the orchestra play, encourage extremes of dynamic range, articulation, accent, legato, etc..conductors who let the orchestra "swing for the fences", put out 100%.
> Some time ago, I posted on "Conductors" thread, [IIRC] - there are/were conductors who were very much control freaks, and those who favored spontaneity - on the control end - Karajan, Celi, perhaps Leinsdorf are some examples. Szell, also - interesting case, because he could be the ultimate control freak, but at times he could really let the orchestra rip, go for broke, let it all out....funny story about Szell - he claimed that his Cleveland Orchestra <<_started rehearsing where other orchestras finished_>> ...he came under criticism from some quarters that his performances "_lacked spontaneity_" - Szell's response at an ensuing rehearsal <<_Gentlemen, we will now rehearse the spontaneity_!!>> :lol::lol:
> Anyway, on the other end of the spectrum, we get those conductors who cherished spontaneity, and thrived on it - Munch, Beecham, Knappertsbusch are some well-known examples, Munch, esp...he didn't like rehearsing....
> I agree with those who claim that Karajan's recordings lacked spontaneity...it's all worked out in advance, don't do anything differently. Karajan even said that <<work out all the details, the big things will take care of themselves>> I don't think I agree...his performances are decent, the sound quality is good, they are "safe", you are unlikely to get a terrible product...but for me, it just doesn't work....I need to hear the excitement, the effort, the energy, that "on the spot", "at the edge" electricity...


Not sure how you can criticise Karjan for lacking legato. I mean: legato? Seriously? But then, I'm not sure I follow many of the criticisms of Karjan.


----------



## flamencosketches

BachIsBest said:


> Not sure how you can criticise Karjan for lacking legato. I mean: legato? Seriously? But then, I'm not sure I follow many of the criticisms of Karjan.


Where in that quote did he criticize Karajan for lacking legato?


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> Not sure how you can criticise Karjan for lacking legato. I mean: legato? Seriously? But then, I'm not sure I follow many of the criticisms of Karjan.


??? I find Karajan to make excessive use of legato, in line with his general approach...my apologies if I've been somehow unclear.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> I've avoided this thread because it seemed to be getting a bit contentious, and the original topic obscured...anyway -
> I tend to agree with Brahmsianhorn in regards to von Karajan's conducting, and I've stated my position on numerous occasions...
> there is nothing "wrong" with Karajan....he produced good-sounding recordings, consistently, over a wide range of repertoire...he was no doubt a giant in the musical world....I don't really concern myself too much with his personal life, political affiliations, administrative activities, etc, etc...
> 
> For me, I just don't care for that "monotonous" [monotone-ous] sound that he constantly sought from his orchestras...He always stressed beauty - he liked a nice, smooth, round sound, no sharp edges, no hard percussive accents, no hard brilliance, no edgy, brilliant sounds...at times he might allow some of these qualities to trickle in, but generally in very reduced amounts, and far less than other conductors, whose conducting I much prefer..It's almost as if he was constantly trying to fit the music into his concept of sound, rather than fitting the sound into the concept of the music.
> 
> Karajan was definitely a control freak, [many conductors are] no doubt about it, he knew exactly what he wanted, he exercised that control and got that sound consistently...his technique of conducting with his eyes closed is regarded by many musicians as a flawed method - eye contact is one of the main channels of communication between conductor and orchestra musician. it's very hard to enter confidently, play with_ molto espressivo_ when the conductor won't even look at you...still, many listeners like that style and approach..that's perfectly fine...I'm not one of them.
> 
> I prefer conductors who let the orchestra play, encourage extremes of dynamic range, articulation, accent, legato, etc..conductors who let the orchestra "swing for the fences", put out 100%.
> Some time ago, I posted on "Conductors" thread, [IIRC] - there are/were conductors who were very much control freaks, and those who favored spontaneity - on the control end - Karajan, Celi, perhaps Leinsdorf are some examples. Szell, also - interesting case, because he could be the ultimate control freak, but at times he could really let the orchestra rip, go for broke, let it all out....funny story about Szell - he claimed that his Cleveland Orchestra <<_started rehearsing where other orchestras finished_>> ...he came under criticism from some quarters that his performances "_lacked spontaneity_" - Szell's response at an ensuing rehearsal <<_Gentlemen, we will now rehearse the spontaneity_!!>> :lol::lol:
> Anyway, on the other end of the spectrum, we get those conductors who cherished spontaneity, and thrived on it - Munch, Beecham, Knappertsbusch are some well-known examples, Munch, esp...he didn't like rehearsing....
> I agree with those who claim that Karajan's recordings lacked spontaneity...it's all worked out in advance, don't do anything differently. Karajan even said that <<work out all the details, the big things will take care of themselves>> I don't think I agree...his performances are decent, the sound quality is good, they are "safe", you are unlikely to get a terrible product...but for me, it just doesn't work....I need to hear the excitement, the effort, the energy, that "on the spot", "at the edge" electricity...


Again, I listened to both the Furtwangler and Karajan Coriolans back to back this morning with an open mind. It is a night and day difference. One is spontaneous and edge of your seat, the other is controlled and contained. It is clear as day in the recordings and accentuated by the visual Karajan's manicured movements. If only we had the visual of Furtwangler randomly swaying and shaking in his epileptic manner to make the difference even more obvious. But you don't need the visuals to hear what the two men were aiming for.

Again, I don't understand why people take personal offense at simple observations and preferences.

Also, as I have stated, there are works where Karajan's creamy sound world work for me. Epically dramatic works are simply not among them, though as stated earlier his live Mahler 9th is uniquely impressive.

I also love his 1950 Zauberflote. Karajan knew how music should go, there is no denying that from me. He was one of the least idiosyncratic conductors on record, which is both the best and the worst thing about him.


----------



## BachIsBest

Heck148 said:


> ??? I find Karajan to make excessive use of legato, in line with his general approach...my apologies if I've been somehow unclear.


Then why did you write:



Heck148 said:


> I prefer conductors who let the orchestra play, encourage extremes of dynamic range, articulation, accent, legato


----------



## BachIsBest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, I listened to both the Furtwangler and Karajan Coriolans back to back this morning with an open mind. It is a night and day difference. One is spontaneous and edge of your seat, the other is controlled and contained. It is clear as day in the recordings and accentuated by the visual Karajan's manicured movements. If only we had the visual of Furtwangler randomly swaying and shaking in his epileptic manner to make the difference even more obvious. But you don't need the visuals to hear what the two men were aiming for.
> 
> Again, I don't understand why people take personal offense at simple observations and preferences.
> 
> Also, as I have stated, there are works where Karajan's creamy sound world work for me. Epically dramatic works are simply not among them, though as stated earlier his live Mahler 9th is uniquely impressive.
> 
> I also love his 1950 Zauberflote. Karajan knew how music should go, there is no denying that from me. He was one of the least idiosyncratic conductors on record, which is both the best and the worst thing about him.


Just out of interest, what do you think of Karajan's Sibelius?


----------



## MatthewWeflen

BachIsBest said:


> Just out of interest, what do you think of Karajan's Sibelius?


I know I want asked, but I find Karajan's Sibelius to be the most dramatic and emotional of all the versions I've heard. My second favorite is Colin Davis/LSO.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BachIsBest said:


> Just out of interest, what do you think of Karajan's Sibelius?


I prefer Beecham and Bernstein, but as always Karajan is worth keeping around for the sound he creates. I like him best in R. Strauss and Bruckner


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> Then why did you write:


I was making the point that I prefer a full spectrum of articulation....and dynamics, etc...I would never say that legato should never be used...I'm not sure how i misled you....(??)


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> Just out of interest, what do you think of Karajan's Sibelius?


Ok to awful....2 examples ottomh - his Finlandia (BPO/DG) is really poor...Sym #2 (BPO/YouTube) is ok....needs more oomph in the climaxes, esp the grand finale...a little slow in the buildup....final chorale needs more "throttle", "pedal to the metal" - try LondonSO, NBC, NYPO...Those guys are going for the fences...


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I prefer Beecham and Bernstein, but as always Karajan is worth keeping around for the sound he creates. I like him best in R. Strauss and Bruckner


Interesting that Sibelius preferred Karajan to Beecham. But then, he always did have poor taste! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, I listened to both the Furtwangler and Karajan Coriolans back to back this morning with an open mind. It is a night and day difference. One is spontaneous and edge of your seat, the other is controlled and contained. It is clear as day in the recordings and accentuated by the visual Karajan's manicured movements. If only we had the visual of Furtwangler randomly swaying and shaking in his epileptic manner to make the difference even more obvious. But you don't need the visuals to hear what the two men were aiming for.
> 
> *Again, I don't understand why people take personal offense at simple observations and preferences.
> *
> Also, as I have stated, there are works where Karajan's creamy sound world work for me. Epically dramatic works are simply not among them, though as stated earlier his live Mahler 9th is uniquely impressive.
> 
> I also love his 1950 Zauberflote. Karajan knew how music should go, there is no denying that from me. He was one of the least idiosyncratic conductors on record, which is both the best and the worst thing about him.


No-one takes offence at simple observations and preferences. It's when you imply that your observations and preferences have a higher artistic merit that makes you artistically superior to others who differ from you. Maybe you don't mean it that way but that's the way it comes across. And I don't take personal offence honestly. Just smile!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> No-one takes offence at simple observations and preferences. It's when you imply that your observations and preferences have a higher artistic merit that makes you artistically superior to others who differ from you. Maybe you don't mean it that way but that's the way it comes across. And I don't take personal offence honestly. Just smile!


When did I ever say any of this? In fact I have explicitly stated the opposite


----------



## Radames

Heck148 said:


> For me, I just don't care for that "monotonous" [monotone-ous] sound that he constantly sought from his orchestras...He always stressed beauty - he liked a nice, smooth, round sound, no sharp edges, no hard percussive accents, no hard brilliance, no edgy, brilliant sounds...at times he might allow some of these qualities to trickle in, but generally in very reduced amounts, and far less than other conductors, whose conducting I much prefer..It's almost as if he was constantly trying to fit the music into his concept of sound, rather than fitting the sound into the concept of the music.


I like this observation. I find his style was dispassionate and I like the opposite approach in romantic music.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> When did I ever say any of this? In fact I have explicitly stated the opposite


Just look back at your posts. Another smile to think you haven't even realised it!


----------



## DavidA

Radames said:


> I like this observation. I find his style was dispassionate and I like the opposite approach in romantic music.


Heard the Don Carlo? I think dispassionate is the last word I'd describe it as! The problem isHeck148 appears to have this thing about the way he hears Karajan's sound when a lot of people hear the opposite.


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> Heard the Don Carlo? I think dispassionate is the last word I'd describe it as! The problem isHeck148 appears to have this thing about the way he hears Karajan's sound when a lot of people hear the opposite.


And an infinite amount of other great opera recordings with great cast. _Butterfly_, _Il Trovatore_ and _Lucia_ with Callas for example. I think his Wagner stagings (there's a _Das Rheingold_ DVD actually) where aesthetically very pleasing and realistic.


----------



## Merl

I try to remain out of debates about Karajan but admit I can't do it. I feel I sometimes have to defend his music-making because I think I understand what he was trying to achieve even if sometimes I didn't like the results, either. I don't subscribe to the slick', 'glossy' jibes and find this is like calling all of Furty's recordings chaotic and winged or all of Klemp's recordings slow and bombastic. Just nonsense. I know where you're coming from Heck and appreciate your knowledge of orchestras but I don't hear exactly what you do on every Karajan recording. I hear the BPO (they've had a 'sound' to them which I recognise even in Rattle, Abbado, etc). I find I hear Karajan's 'sound' on some recordings but not others and rarely on his live recordings. Some also say it's the 'same sound' but it's not. Listen to his Bruckner, then his Holst, then his Schoenberg They have very different sounds. Yes, I believe he did have a 'sound' in his head but it was for each piece not a 'one sound fits all' . Sometimes he got it right, other times he didn't but to tar all his recordings with the same 'they all sound the same' brush is wrong. I think this snippet from a Karajan interview in Gramophone explains something about what he he wanted to hear.... 
_
Interviewer: Yet the other day I noticed an eminent conductor, whose Bruckner is highly praised, reaching a fortissimo long before what is to me self-evidently the work's pivotal climax.

HK: But, you see, this is a most interesting fact that you have noticed. So many conductors - and I must say Furtwängler was sometimes one of these - create enormous crescendos; and after them the music collapses. It is like a man who storms up to the top of a great mountain and then just drops down. And this was Bruno Walter's great point. When you are up then you must know you are up! You enjoy the view, and you are stimulated by it. Also the end must feel as though it is an end. _


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> I assume you don't admire many conductors in the Karajan and pre-Karajan era as most of them were autocrats? The conductor who wasn't an autocrat tended to be the exception rather than the rule
> 
> You talk about the control of an orchestra whereas that is the conductor's job. Of course how he achieves that today is by a different route to what the likes of Verdi (another autocrat in front of an orchestra) Mahler or Toscanini achieves it. But it is still his(or today her) goal.


I think there is a difference between recognizing and admiring. Of course conductors are in charge of the orchestra and it is their goal to let the orchestra play at its best. How they achieve this, varies a lot. And also the qualities and weaker points of the orchestras vary.

Of course, I know that there are many good recordings that were the result of autocratic leadership. But I think that the music will only be at its best if musicians feel free to play the music together and are listening to eachother and are enabling eachother in achieving the best sound. Even among the best orchestras and conductors, such a result is never a given fact. 
I also think that with a top quality orchestra, true autocrats will not achieve such a result. Making great music is in the end a subtle creative cooperative achievement. And there are also conductors who are able to reassure and invite musicians to give it their best and to communicate well with the musicians.

There is of course a lot more to say about this, it is an interesting subject. But back on topic, we can probably agree that HvK was quite the autocrat and a traditional top down leader, who would drill the orchestra to deliver his desired sound. This might work well the first time. But if you do this year in year out, it becomes a routine. 
I wonder what would have happened if Karajan would have left the BPO for another orchestra, say Dresden or even Chicago. Maybe this would have led to more interesting retakes of his 'golden' repertoire? Some conductors enjoy(ed) a most inspiring indian summer: Blomstedt, Haitink, Abbado, Wand, Harnoncourt, Celibidache, to name a few.

This even more fascinates me as my favorite Karajan recording is Mahler 9 from 82, where the same combination would produce their 4th(?) Beethoven cycle together only a few years later, which leaves me totally cold.


----------



## adriesba

Are their any videos of Karajan in rehearsal?


----------



## NLAdriaan

annaw said:


> I really like both Wagner and Karajan, but it's not because they were autocrats, it's because of the music. Wagner's music, its themes and philosophy runs much deeper than "endless heroism and control". Don't you think that if that was the case Valhalla wouldn't be destructed and Wotan would reign happily for eternity? Siegfried, Siegmund and Tristan wouldn't die and Lohengrin would stay? The essence of the characters is not just the heroism but they often convey a certain philosophical or psychological idea or theory. German Romanticism had some topics that can be seen in pretty much all of the arts. Like 'eternal feminine' that is most famously known from Goethe's _Faust_ - Wagner has mentioned a similar idea in his letters, he has actually mentioned the term itself. He shouldn't be defined through his antisemitic views which were only a small part of his ideas and thoughts. There's a reason why people still cannot understand all of the things Wagner wanted to convey through his operas. Because of their complexity so many musicologists have devoted more or less their whole career to analyse e.g the _Ring_. It's not just endless heroism and control, at least in my opinion...
> 
> When it comes to Karajan, I don't actually see how his somewhat autocratic take of things would affect the sound or the way I perceive it? It could be argued that Toscanini was even worse, but you don't neglect a good recording just because the conductor was autocratic. In fact, I think the majority of conductors are autocratic to some extent, even nowadays. You have to be because your interpretations is the one that will be judged and you're the one who has to lead the whole orchestra. I totally understand that you don't admire Karajan's recordings on the basis of music.


I just don't follow Wagner into the depth of his philosophical ideas, which I find merely grotesque and totalitarian. I earlier compared the storylines to Tolkien or Harry Potter, much to the dislike of true Wagner fans. I just don't see Wagner anywhere near to the great writers, poets and philosophers of the 19th century. But this of course is only personal, no offense.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I think there is a difference between recognizing and admiring. Of course conductors are in charge of the orchestra and it is their goal to let the orchestra play at its best. How they achieve this, varies a lot. And also the qualities and weaker points of the orchestras vary.
> 
> Of course, I know that there are many good recordings that were the result of autocratic leadership. *But I think that the music will only be at its best if musicians feel free to play the music together and are listening to eachother and are enabling eachother in achieving the best sound.* Even among the best orchestras and conductors, such a result is never a given fact.
> I also think that with a top quality orchestra, true autocrats will not achieve such a result. Making great music is in the end a subtle creative cooperative achievement. And there are also conductors who are able to reassure and invite musicians to give it their best and to communicate well with the musicians.
> 
> There is of course a lot more to say about this, it is an interesting subject. But back on topic, we can probably agree that HvK was quite the autocrat and a traditional top down leader, who would drill the orchestra to deliver his desired sound. This might work well the first time. But if you do this year in year out, it becomes a routine.
> I wonder what would have happened if Karajan would have left the BPO for another orchestra, say *Dresden* or even Chicago. Maybe this would have led to more interesting retakes of his 'golden' repertoire? Some conductors enjoy(ed) a most inspiring indian summer: Blomstedt, Haitink, Abbado, Wand, Harnoncourt, Celibidache, to name a few.
> 
> This even more fascinates me as my favorite Karajan recording is Mahler 9 from 82, where the same combination would produce their 4th(?) Beethoven cycle together only a few years later, which leaves me totally cold.


It is interesting that the players who actually played under Karajan said this is what happened in his performances. They said his goal was to get them to listen to each other and then gave them freedom in the actual performance to express themselves. I'm just repeating what they said and they should know rather than the critics!

You can of course hear Karajan in Dresden in the Mastersingers recording.


----------



## NLAdriaan

adriesba said:


> Are their any videos of Karajan in rehearsal?















This is what I could find. It wouldn't surprise me if these rehearsals were more or less staged. Karajan was quite sensitive about his image.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> It is interesting that the players who actually played under Karajan said this is what happened in his performances. They said his goal was to get them to listen to each other and then gave them freedom in the actual performance to express themselves. I'm just repeating what they said and they should know rather than the critics!
> 
> You can of course hear Karajan in Dresden in the Mastersingers recording.


Interesting, as this seems to contradict the 'total control' approach and a lot of what Rattle said in his interview, which he also heard from musicians. Maybe it just depends on which musician in which orchestra in which period you would hear?

Yes, I know the Dresden Meistersinger and it is indeed a wonderful recording.


----------



## Merl

NLAdriaan said:


> There is of course a lot more to say about this, it is an interesting subject. But back on topic, we can probably agree that HvK was quite the autocrat and a traditional top down leader, who would drill the orchestra to deliver his desired sound. This might work well the first time. But if you do this year in year out, it becomes a routine.
> I wonder what would have happened if Karajan would have left the BPO for another orchestra, say Dresden or even Chicago. Maybe this would have led to more interesting retakes of his 'golden' repertoire? Some conductors enjoy(ed) a most inspiring indian summer: Blomstedt, Haitink, Abbado, Wand, Harnoncourt, Celibidache, to name a few.
> 
> This even more fascinates me as my favorite Karajan recording is Mahler 9 from 82, where the same combination would produce their 4th(?) Beethoven cycle together only a few years later, which leaves me totally cold.


Some really interesting points here, NLA. I too wonder what would have happened if he had gone elsewhere but life was good for him at the BPO until the Sabine Meyer incident so he probably felt 'why bother'. His health wasn't great in the later years of his life and it did affect him and frustrated him. I would have loved to hear him work with the big American orchestras, for example. He was certainly an autocrat, though, and that was what I was getting at with my earlier post. In his life and work his control of power seemed to be central to his ethos. We know about his control of rhythm - he was a walking metronome and you can't teach that control of rhythm... You either have it or don't. So whilst there:s power aplenty on many performances it's how you come down from that power that concerned him. I think he managed that really well in the Mahler 9s which is why many people rate them so highly but not always elsewhere (eg his 80s Beethoven cycle) . As far as his last LVB is concerned it was a cycle he didn't need to record as he'd already been there and had multiple t-shirts but it was a new media so he probably thought 'what the hell' and went with the digital age. He was, after all, fascinated by new technology.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting, as this seems to contradict the 'total control' approach and a lot of what Rattle said in his interview, which he also heard from musicians. Maybe it just depends on which musician in which orchestra in which period you would hear?
> 
> Yes, I know the Dresden Meistersinger and it is indeed a wonderful recording.


Actually Rattle appears to contradict the 'total control' by what he says later. Karajan was a control freak but according to his players not in actual performance.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Some really interesting points here, NLA. I too wonder what would have happened if he had gone elsewhere but life was good for him at the BPO until *the Sabine Meyer incident *so he probably felt 'why bother'. His health wasn't great in the later years of his life and it did affect him and frustrated him. I would have loved to hear him work with the big American orchestras, for example. He was certainly an autocrat, though, and that was what I was getting at with my earlier post. In his life and work his control of power seemed to be central to his ethos. We know about his control of rhythm - he was a walking metronome and you can't teach that control of rhythm... You either have it or don't. So whilst there:s power aplenty on many performances it's how you come down from that power that concerned him. I think he managed that really well in the Mahler 9s which is why many people rate them so highly but not always elsewhere (eg his 80s Beethoven cycle) . As far as his last LVB is concerned it was a cycle he didn't need to record as he'd already been there and had multiple t-shirts but it was a new media so he probably thought 'what the hell' and went with the digital age. He was, after all, fascinated by new technology.


The problem was he had stayed too long. But he couldn't let go of the power thing. He should have gone at the top and then guest conducted but of course that was not his way. The BPO certainly felt the draught financially when he left in terms of recording perks. But the Sabine Meyer thing was about who controlled and actually it was the orchestra's decision. Karajan by then was a dinosaur in a world which had moved on into a more democratic mode.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> Heard the Don Carlo? I think dispassionate is the last word I'd describe it as! The problem isHeck148 appears to have this thing about the way he hears Karajan's sound when a lot of people hear the opposite.


A lot of people agree with me, several on this thread...


----------



## NLAdriaan

Merl said:


> Some really interesting points here, NLA. I too wonder what would have happened if he had gone elsewhere but life was good for him at the BPO until the Sabine Meyer incident so he probably felt 'why bother'. His health wasn't great in the later years of his life and it did affect him and frustrated him. I would have loved to hear him work with the big American orchestras, for example. He was certainly an autocrat, though, and that was what I was getting at with my earlier post. In his life and work his control of power seemed to be central to his ethos. We know about his control of rhythm - he was a walking metronome and you can't teach that control of rhythm... You either have it or don't. So whilst there:s power aplenty on many performances it's how you come down from that power that concerned him. I think he managed that really well in the Mahler 9s which is why many people rate them so highly but not always elsewhere (eg his 80s Beethoven cycle) . As far as his last LVB is concerned it was a cycle he didn't need to record as he'd already been there and had multiple t-shirts but it was a new media so he probably thought 'what the hell' and went with the digital age. He was, after all, fascinated by new technology.


I think in general such endless tenures are never fruitful. Currently, chief conductors tend to stay at top orchestra's for 10-15 years. I think Karajan could still have made an artistically interesting move around 1970. But the most honourable handcuffs of his lifetime appointment likely prevented this from happening.

I know that Haitink was with the RCO for 25 years, having been appointed when he was very young and when it was still customary to appoint countrymen. It all became very awkward in the end when the orchestra clearly wanted a new face and Haitink felt terribly insulted by this. But Chailly came and refreshed the orchestra and Haitink re-ignited his career elsewhere, with much success. And after a cool-down period, Haitink would still return to the orchestra with great success. The BPO also clearly benefited from the appointment of Abbado and the increasing number of recordings with guest-conductors, like Haitink (Mahler), Wand (Bruckner), Harnoncourt (Brahms).


----------



## JAS

In a documentary about conducting, the consensus of the actual musicians, who had played under various conductors, seemed to be that the musicianship and the performance was better under the autocrats. One told a story that the musicians were just warming up and each playing their own bits, with no real concern about what others were doing. Suddenly, he was aware that the level of playing had dramatically improved, and he looked up to see that Furtwangler had simply walked into the room. The implication was that he made musicians play better merely by them being aware of his presence. Beecham, on the other hand, was very dismissive of conductors who came in and tried to be autocrats with _his_ orchestra. (Mostly, it seemed that he was being dismissive of lots of practice sessions.)


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> Are their any videos of Karajan in rehearsal?


Take a look at this:

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/search?search_query=Karajan+dvd


----------



## Heck148

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting, as this seems to contradict the 'total control' approach and a lot of what Rattle said in his interview, which he also heard from musicians. Maybe it just depends on which musician in which orchestra in which period you would hear?.


Getting the musicians to play together, listen to each other, is a very common goal among conductors...like achieving accurate rhythm or intonation....
Once again, the freedom of expression enjoyed by Karajan's musicians is rather minuscule compared with other conductors - Bernstein, Walter, Toscanini, Reiner for example, to say nothing of free-wheelers like Stokowski or Mitropoulos.


----------



## DavidA

JAS said:


> In a documentary about conducting, the consensus of the actual musicians, who had played under various conductors, seemed to be that the musicianship and the performance was better under the autocrats. One told a story that the musicians were just warming up and each playing their own bits, with no real concern about what others were doing. Suddenly, he was aware that the level of playing had dramatically improved, and he looked up to see that Furtwangler had simply walked into the room. The implication was that he made musicians play better merely by them being aware of his presence. *Beecham, on the other hand, was very dismissive of conductors who came in and tried to be autocrats with his orchestra. *(Mostly, it seemed that he was being dismissive of lots of practice sessions.)


Beecham was dismissive of other conductors full stop! :lol:

Funny how autocrats are dismissive of other autocrats. Beecham certainly was an autocrat. He even formed his own orchestras to control them. It was ironic that Toscanini was a great anti-fascist while being the world's greatest fascist himself on the podium!


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> I think in general such endless tenures are never fruitful. Currently, chief conductors tend to stay at top orchestra's for 10-15 years.* I think Karajan could still have made an artistically interesting move around 1970. *But the most honourable handcuffs of his lifetime appointment likely prevented this from happening.
> 
> I know that Haitink was with the RCO for 25 years, having been appointed when he was very young and when it was still customary to appoint countrymen. It all became very awkward in the end when the orchestra clearly wanted a new face and Haitink felt terribly insulted by this. But Chailly came and refreshed the orchestra and Haitink re-ignited his career elsewhere, with much success. And after a cool-down period, Haitink would still return to the orchestra with great success. The BPO also clearly benefited from the appointment of Abbado and the increasing number of recordings with guest-conductors, like Haitink (Mahler), Wand (Bruckner), Harnoncourt (Brahms).


Yes I agree with this although I think Karajan made some very interesting recordings after 1970 - his second set of Beethoven symphonies, the Second Viennese School and the Mahler recordings for example. There were also the operatic recordings with the BPO. If he had left after the live Mahler 9 (1980) that would have ended on a high.


----------



## NLAdriaan

On conductors charisma, a very interesting clip:






the full documentary:






I don't consider Gergiev to be an autocrat, he has lots of charisma though. Anyhow, this great documentary is very interesting to watch, a conducting masterclass in Rotterdam in 2003. For instance, note Gergiev's remarks as of 1:09:00 into the doc. How to achieve the best result with musicians?


----------



## larold

_he was aware that the level of playing had dramatically improved, and he looked up to see that Furtwangler had simply walked into the room. The implication was that he made musicians play better merely by them being aware of his presence._

Ironic the story about Furtwangler is few could locate or follow his beat. The famous story was to find his beat, "Get up, walk around your chair several times, and sit down."


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Yes I agree with this although *I think Karajan made some very interesting recordings after 1970* - his second set of Beethoven symphonies, the Second Viennese School and the Mahler recordings for example. There were also the operatic recordings with the BPO. If he had left after the live Mahler 9 (1980) that would have ended on a high.


Absolutely true, but after '82, he was too old to start something new elsewhere. And his 70's recordings (also:Honegger) could probably have been realised elsewhere? However, his second Viennese school recordings reportedly have taken endless rehearsals, which likely not any orchestra would have offered.


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

Heck148 said:


> Getting the musicians to play together, listen to each other, is a very common goal among conductors...like achieving accurate rhythm or intonation....
> Once again, the freedom of expression enjoyed by Karajan's musicians is rather minuscule compared with other conductors - Bernstein, Walter, Toscanini, Reiner for example, to say nothing of free-wheelers like Stokowski or Mitropoulos.


Seems I'd heard somewhere that Szell was an absolute dictator. Don't know where he would fit in that continuum of control by conductors.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Absolutely true, *but after '82, he was too old to start something new elsewhere*. And his 70's recordings (also:Honegger) could probably have been realised elsewhere? However, his second Viennese school recordings reportedly have taken endless rehearsals, which likely not any orchestra would have offered.


There is of course such a thing as retirement. But Karajan was not the sort of man to contemplate that!


----------



## Heck148

Ekim the jvmInsubordinate said:


> Seems I'd heard somewhere that Szell was an absolute dictator. Don't know where he would fit in that continuum of control by conductors.


Yes, Szell was a total control type...he had sole control of hiring/firing, salaries, vacations, etc. any time a principal had a lengthy solo in a work to be performed, he had to attend "coaching sessions" with the Maestro.....Szell could be the all-time musical micro-manager of conductors...however, at times, he'd really let the orchestra cut loose, let it all hang out..to great effect.


----------



## DavidA

Ekim the Insubordinate said:


> Seems I'd heard somewhere that Szell was an absolute dictator. Don't know where he would fit in that continuum of control by conductors.


He was apparently, like Reiner, a pretty unpleasant individual.


----------



## Heck148

DavidA said:


> He was apparently, like Reiner, a pretty unpleasant individual.


Really, Some of the greatest conductors were pretty miserable human beings...


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> He was apparently, like Reiner, a pretty unpleasant individual.


Yet many conductors and friends of Szell liked him a lot on a personal level. Here's aquote from Karajan........

RO: But you have conducted other great orchestras: Szell's Cleveland Orchestra, for example?

_HK: Yes, Szell and I were great friends. He was always insisting that I conduct the Prokofiev Fifth, and I wondered what he wanted. So I did it, and in the interval of the rehearsal he came and said he was suffering from nervous shock because the moment I started he realized that I was doing exactly the contrary of all the things he had taught the orchestra. It seemed like a complete breakdown; but after a few minutes they were playing as if they had always played this way. And you know there is a passage at the start of the finale with the cellos. And in the interval of my concert he did some work with the players to ensure that it was perfect - now there is real dedication and generosity!

RO: Klemperer once said Szell was a machine but a very good machine.

HK: No, you cannot really say that. He was a man with a full heart. When you had a chance to meet him in his house with all his guests, he was a most charming and intelligent man. No, I can't understand that remark._

Karajan and Szell went back a long way to Karajan's early trips to America and Szell was often invited to Salzburg. Both these autocrats had a strong respect for the other and their orchestral skills. Apparently, when Dohnanyi got the Cleveland job the first telegram he got was from Karajan saying "This is the only orchestra I guest conducted where I didn't have something to say after 3 rehearsals."

Incidentally there's a funny quote from Szell regarding Reiner. Apparently Szell invited Reiner to guest conduct the Clevelanders and allegedly Reiner responded bluntly "I only guest conduct for two reasons: a good fee and reputation. You are offering neither". Szell was apparently livid. Lol. I think it was suggested by Szell at one point that HvK would have liked to work more closely with the Clevelanders but that never materialised and it was probably just idle gossip anyway but there's no doubt it was am orchestra he enjoyed playing with. Certainly would have been an interesting mix, though.


----------



## Heck148

Ah, yes, Szell could be quite charming and generous...same with Reiner and Toscanini...when they got on the podium tho....different story. 
I played frequently for Walter Hendl, at school, great conductor...he was Reiner's understudy/clone...He was a real pr*ck on the podium...nasty, sarcastic, intimidating...yet in social gatherings he was most charming, humorous and pleasantly sociable...also quite a ladies' man...


----------



## Merl

I found this picture of Karajan and Szell together. Feel free to add your own caption, Heck. Lol.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^That is incredibly meme-worthy. I’ll leave it to the more creative people to come up with a caption.


----------



## superhorn

Yes, there are a fair number of them, some of which I've seen . He doesn't come across as "autocratic " in them. He's very exacting and meticulous , knows exactly what he wants, but he still seems relaxed and easy going . It wasn't his style to yell and scream at musicians, and since he worked with the finest orchestras in the world , there was no need to . 
He even interrupts the rehearsals to tell the musicians funny stories about his experiences as a conductor .


----------



## Heck148

Merl said:


> I found this picture of Karajan and Szell together. Feel free to add your own caption, Heck. Lol.
> View attachment 134368


I keep forgetting, Szell was quite a tall fellow...I don't know if he was as tall as "Klemps", but he was pretty good-sized...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> HK: But, you see, this is a most interesting fact that you have noticed. So many conductors - and I must say Furtwängler was sometimes one of these - create enormous crescendos; and after them the music collapses. It is like a man who storms up to the top of a great mountain and then just drops down. And this was Bruno Walter's great point. When you are up then you must know you are up! You enjoy the view, and you are stimulated by it. Also the end must feel as though it is an end. [/I]


Again, Karajan's music, the visual of him conducting, and his own words you quote demonstrate his aesthetic. He liked things kept on an even keel, a tight control. He disliked big ebbs and flows, big distrurbances, jolts.

So for me a huge dramatic crescendo followed by a tranquil mood shift - release and relax - is exactly what I want, what I feel the music asks for, and what I get from a conductor like Furtwängler.

Not for Karajan. He wants more homogenization. The peaks not too high and the valleys not too low. It's just the way he sees things.

I've worked with conductors like this, and I don't jive with them. They want things contained and homogenized, and I add too wide an emotional palette in my expression for their taste. One of these is a Grammy-winning conductor in my hometown, a friend going back decades, and I've never been included on his albums. But I've had to accept that my style is just not his cup of tea and vice versa. His priority is beautiful sounds, not drama. There are other conductors with whom I work better.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, Karajan's music, the visual of him conducting, and his own words you quote demonstrate his aesthetic. He liked things kept on an even keel, a tight control. He *disliked big ebbs and flows, big distrurbances, jolts.*
> 
> So for me a huge dramatic crescendo followed by a tranquil mood shift - release and relax - is exactly what I want, what I feel the music asks for, and what I get from a conductor like Furtwängler.
> 
> Not for Karajan. He wants more homogenization. The peaks not too high and the valleys not too low. It's just the way he sees things.
> 
> I've worked with conductors like this, and I don't jive with them. They want things contained and homogenized, and I add too wide an emotional palette in my expression for their taste. One of these is a Grammy-winning conductor in my hometown, a friend going back decades, and I've never been included on his albums. But I've had to accept that my style is just not his cup of tea and vice versa. His priority is beautiful sounds, not drama. There are other conductors with whom I work better.


The problem is it's just not true what you are saying what we hear in the recordings. One thing when I first came across HvK's recordings as a lad was the critics remarking on the huge dynamic range he achieved from the orchestra. So the 'homogenisation you talk about is entirely in your own imagination I'm afraid. It's amazing how when we get something in our mind how the mind plays tricks.It's amazing how when we get something in our mind how the mind plays tricks. What you say about Karajan's recordings is simply not true in what I hear. In fact I would say in terms of the dynamics the opposite is the case. It's interesting that in the Joyce Hatto affair critics were fooled by their own preconceived opinions when they saw the name on the label.


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Again, Karajan's music, the visual of him conducting, and his own words you quote demonstrate his aesthetic. He liked things kept on an even keel, a tight control. He disliked big ebbs and flows, big distrurbances, jolts.
> 
> So for me a huge dramatic crescendo followed by a tranquil mood shift - release and relax - is exactly what I want, what I feel the music asks for, and what I get from a conductor like Furtwängler.
> 
> Not for Karajan. He wants more homogenization. The peaks not too high and the valleys not too low. It's just the way he sees things.


Very well put, BH - that's how I hear it as well with Karajan - he just did not want that full throttle, "at the edge", all out _fortississimo_ volume...he did not want his orchestras to produce that tone, which will result when the orchestra is given the full "green light"...recordings can be misleading - I'm not too persuaded by "control room fortissimo" - I go by the tone being produced by the instruments.


----------



## annaw

As much as I’ve understood, Karajan’s “homogenization” usually refers either to his strong emphasis on legato or the weird digital editing of his laster recordings (I recall that was one of the problems with his last Beethoven cycle). If you listen to his Bruckner or Wagner the fortissimos are certainly there.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Very well put, BH - that's how I hear it as well with Karajan - he just did not want that full throttle, "at the edge", all out _fortississimo_ volume...he did not want his orchestras to produce that tone, which will result when the orchestra is given the full "green light"...recordings can be misleading - I'm not too persuaded by "control room fortissimo" - I go by the tone being produced by the instruments.


Does anyone seriously believe a conductor looking at the floor with his eyes closed is giving players a green light? He knew what he wanted. A homogenous, contained vision.


----------



## BachIsBest

Heck148 said:


> Very well put, BH - that's how I hear it as well with Karajan - he just did not want that full throttle, "at the edge", all out _fortississimo_ volume...he did not want his orchestras to produce that tone, which will result when the orchestra is given the full "green light"...recordings can be misleading - I'm not too persuaded by "control room fortissimo" - I go by the tone being produced by the instruments.


That's funny, although I've always considered Karajan an emotionally restrained conductor, I've also considered him a sonically impressive conductor and, although Karjan certainly meddled in the control room, especially in the '80s, much of this meddling is removed in modern releases and I can't say I've ever heard of him adding "control room fortissimo". There must be some serious "control room fortissimo" going on in his live recording of Mahler's 9th, especially in the first movement.

Unless you provide some actually evidence that Karajan edited his recordings because he didn't actually create the fortissimo, claiming that he did so is a bit slanderous. Is it possible, just maybe possible, that he was a very talented conductor working with very talented musicians and they were able to produce fortissimo sounds without sounding strained and while maintaining orchestral clarity and the beauty of tone that Karajan so desired?


----------



## annaw

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does anyone seriously believe a conductor looking at the floor with his eyes closed is giving players a green light? He knew what he wanted. A homogenous, contained vision.


I think that his hands might have played a more important role than his eyes in giving the orchestra any kind of signal... Galway who actually didn't get along with Karajan too well still said about him that "He brought out the best in you all the time. The orchestra sat on the front of their chairs. If you watch any movie of the Berlin Philharmonic, nobody sits back." In fact, he did open his eyes when communication was needed, especially with the singers (check out the video of his Mozart Requiem _Dies Irae_ on Youtube for example).

EDIT: Another example of eyes opened with singers.






(I hadn't noticed before that this video has Jess Thomas!)


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Does anyone seriously believe a conductor looking at the floor with his eyes closed is giving players a green light? He knew what he wanted. A homogenous, contained vision.


Do you think that a conductor like Furtwangler who couldn't give a comprehensible beat could conduct anything? Or Gergiev waving his fingers? Frankly what you say just doesn't tally when one listens to the musicians of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra who actually played under Karajan. We are dealing with professional musicians now not a bunch of amateurs. Of course Karajan was all eyes when he conducted (eg) a youth orchestra. Your problem is you seem to be a one size fits all guy with preconceived ideas of what should be done. But conductors are a law to themselves. Great musicians just don't fit our pattern.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I'll give an obvious, notorious example. I've always wanted to like Karajan's Beethoven 9th because he knows how the work should be paced and had the best musicians onhand. The sound of the BPO is impressive. But the big letdown for me with Karajan is always the choral "Ode to Joy" statement. This should sound like an exhuberant eruption. It is obviously what was intended by Beethoven. It should be the very definition of release and letting loose.

With Karajan it is always a letdown. As he states in that quote DavidA provided, he always has his eyes down the road, so he does not believe in letting loose. You can feel Karajan restraining Beethoven here, saying "Now let's not get too excited."

The first recording where this section really provided what I was looking for was Solti 1972 with the magnificent Margaret Hillis-trained choir. Then I later also discovered Furtwangler and what unbridled joy should sound like at this moment.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Do you think that a conductor like Furtwangler who couldn't give a comprehensible beat could conduct anything? Or Gergiev waving his fingers?


Do you understand that for some conductors mere precision is not their aim? Furtwangler consciously chose not to give a strict beat, and he famously explained how it was not the effect he wanted.

Conductors have different aims and styles. Good for us to be able to choose what we like and don't like.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Do you understand that for some conductors mere precision is not their aim? Furtwangler consciously chose not to give a strict beat, and he famously explained how it was not the effect he wanted.
> 
> Conductors have different aims and styles. Good for us to be able to choose what we like and don't like.


Exactly! Great conductors get the effect they want.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll give an obvious, notorious example. I've always wanted to like Karajan's Beethoven 9th because he knows how the work should be paced and had the best musicians onhand. The sound of the BPO is impressive. But the big letdown for me with Karajan is always the choral "Ode to Joy" statement. This should sound like an exhuberant eruption. It is obviously what was intended by Beethoven. It should be the very definition of release and letting loose.
> 
> With Karajan it is always a letdown. As he states in that quote DavidA provided, he always has his eyes down the road, so he does not believe in letting loose. You can feel Karajan restraining Beethoven here, saying "Now let's not get too excited."
> 
> The first recording where this section really provided what I was looking for was Solti 1972 with the magnificent Margaret Hillis-trained choir. Then I later also discovered Furtwangler and what unbridled joy should sound like at this moment.


I am flabbergasted you choose this as an example when the Penguin Guide points out the sheer eruption of exuberance at that point. Obviously hearing a different performance than you - or me! Karajan outdoes all others including Furtwangler at Bayreuth which was a pretty damp squib.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

DavidA said:


> I am flabbergasted you choose this as an example when the Penguin Guide points out the sheer eruption of exuberance at that point. Obviously hearing a different performance than you - or me! Karajan outdoes all others including Furtwangler at Bayreuth which was a pretty damp squib.


I'm with DavidA on this one. Of the dozen ninths I own, Karajan's 77 is by far the most thrilling and uplifting. It has a beautiful adagio, but also a frenetic 2nd and a powerful choral.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It is a by and large a terrific 9th, but going back nearly 30 years to when I first started trying different 9ths I always found the arrival of the main Ode to Joy chorus with Karajan to be a letdown. To my ear he keeps a lid on things at this crucial point in the work.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It is a by and large a terrific 9th, but going back nearly 30 years to when I first started trying different 9ths I always found the arrival of the main Ode to Joy chorus with Karajan to be a letdown. To my ear he keeps a lid on things at this crucial point in the work.


I fear your ears hear different to mine!


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> ....although Karjan certainly meddled in the control room, especially in the '80s, much of this meddling is removed in modern releases and I can't say I've ever heard of him adding "control room fortissimo"......
> Unless you provide some actually evidence that Karajan edited his recordings because he didn't actually create the fortissimo, claiming that he did so is a bit slanderous.


I don't know for sure what processing was done in the control room, recording engineers tend to be pretty secretive about their various techniques, ime....a good friend of mine, a professional recording engineer, has speculated that such gain-riding appears apparent....and that is certainly consistent with the disparity between playback volume and tone quality



> Is it possible, just maybe possible, that he was a very talented conductor working with very talented musicians and they were able to produce fortissimo sounds without sounding strained and while maintaining orchestral clarity and the beauty of tone that Karajan so desired?


fair question, but the answer is NO, I don't think it is possible...let me put it this way - would it be possible, with your own voice, to *shout* at maximum volume level...but have your voice "sound" [have the timbral quality] as it does when you are in a normal, quiet "one on one" conversation?? I don't think so...loud voice, shouting, sounds different from low, conversational voice.


----------



## Heck148

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'm with DavidA on this one. Of the dozen ninths I own, Karajan's 77 is by far the most thrilling and uplifting.


it's ok, but I'm with BH on this one - the big "Ode to Joy" eruption needs to knock the roof off...Reiner for me, nothing like it - great chorus, blazing trumpets, strings digging in....very thrilling...HvK ok in this spot, but held down a bit too much...


----------



## Knorf

Storytime!

When I was lad, and first getting into Classical music, of course I gravitated towards certain famous recordings that were easily available, such as Bernstein for Mahler Symphonies, Karajan for Richard Strauss, etc. Probably my all-time favorite Strauss tone poem is _Ein Heldenleben_; in fact, it's one of my favorite orchestral works period. The recording I purchased at the time (on cassette!) was the digital recording by Karajan from 1985.

Fast forward a few years: I've graduated with composition degrees and established a decent freelance professional career as a bassoonist, and was well on my way towards building a CD collection. By this point, certain friends, espousing the same clichés we've heard repeated thoughtlessly in this thread, somehow convinced me that there were better recordings of all of the repertoire I originally had with Karajan, including _Ein Heldenleben_. Karajan was too smooth, too homogenous, too lacking in drama, etc. So as I built my CD collection, I did not purchase Karajan.

With _Ein Heldenleben_, though, I was not satisfied with the replacements. I tried Kempe, which is very good, but somehow missing something for me. I tried Reiner, and that did little for me. Frankly, I don't need to go down the whole list. Suffice it to say, I listened to a ridiculous number of recordings of _Ein Heldenleben_. If it was a recording made before 2000, I probably listened to it.

What I did want? I wanted big, bold and dramatic. I wanted a huge dynamic range, savage accents in the battle music, spitting woodwinds in the critics music, lush beauty in the works of peace, and and a restful, peaceful coda. I wanted it maximally _schwungvoll_ in the opening. I also wanted superb orchestral playing. And, I'm sorry, the options I tried weren't quite there. Not Kempe. Not Reiner. Not Beecham. Not Haitink. Not Previn. Etc. I was left unsatisfied at least a little by all of them.

Finally, do you know what I did? I remembered that some people said Karajan's 1959 _Ein Heldenleben_ was the best. Reluctantly, I decided to give it a listen. At this stage of my career, I had listened too closely to the Karajan nay-sayers. I was sure in moving away from Karajan I had grown up into greater subtlety and sophistication, and better taste. HAH.

I listened to the 1959 Karajan _Ein Heldenleben_. And there it was! Maximal _schwungvoll_ in the opening! Bitter, spiteful, spitting critics! Tender, beautiful, complex hero's companion! Ferocious, accented, driving battle scene! Stunningly gorgeous works of peace! And a coda that would melt your heart, finding respite at last after one last lashing of the critics. Wow, this was what I was looking for. With superb top-notch orchestral performing, too.

(I also returned to the 1985 _Ein Heldenleben_, and for me it's not quite as good. The contrasts are not quite as strong, the characterization of the different sections not quite as convincing. It's still superb; the 1959 recording is simply more so.)

So Karajan it is for Strauss for me. I've collected just about all of Karajan's Strauss, excepting a couple of the digital recordings, and I do not hesitate to make them my first recommendation to anybody. No one has convinced me more in this repertoire, not then, and not since then. Not Szell. Not Reiner. Not Kempe. Not _anyone_. Not even Carlos Kleiber (although his _Ein Helden_ is well worth hearing if you can find it.)

For Beethoven, I spent a lot of time with mainly period-instrument recordings, many of which I still like. At some point, though, I wanted a big, kind of old-fashioned Beethoven cycle. I had avoided Karajan in Beethoven because "I knew better." Karajan wouldn't get this right, would he? Wouldn't he be too heavy, and too smooth, and too blah blah blah. HAH.

Finally, I gave the 1962 cycle a try. It's fantastic! I can't believe I put off listening to it until I was in my 40s. I don't love everything Karajan does, but overall, it's great, top-shelf Beethoven. And it's NOT just smooth, mezzo-forte, homogenized pablum. Not even close. Saying so is nonsense, simple as that. It is meaty, well-characterized Beethoven. Legato when it needs to be, but staccato when it needs to be as well. Sforzandos are not underplayed, but just right. Dynamic contrasts are wonderful, convincing but not overdone. It's heroic when it needs to, and sweetly pastoral as well when that is required.

I've heard the Furtwängler, and Toscanini, and Walter, and Wand, and all the big sets of Beethoven that people say are infinitely superior. And they JUST ARE NOT. Karajan is not notably less accented, or smoother, or more homogenized than those others. There are for sure different choices, for tempi, for which phrases are highlighted, for balance, etc. But to say Karajan is smoothed-over by comparison is just rubbish. I insist on characterful woodwinds, clearly rhythmic timpani, well articulated strings, bold horns, and strong dynamic contrasts. Karajan has all of those in the 1962 set.

And, no, the Beethoven recording in 1962 _does not_ have the "same orchestral sound" as the _Ein Heldenleben_ from three years earlier.

Of course no one manipulates tempo the way Furtwängler does. But nor do I want them to, frankly. Too often (not always, but more than I like) the tempo shifts in Furtwängler are just weird, and make me wonder if he was even capable of holding a steady tempo. And his orchestras were always really sloppy. I am glad I've heard those recordings, even the wartime ones, but I never felt I needed to own them, to live with them. They're too weird to live with in my collection, frankly, and far too sloppy.

Regardless of that no one needs a Furtwängler imitator.

So if sometime tries insinuate to me that if only I liked music with accents, with dynamic contrasts, with more than just legato all the time, music that didn't all supposedly sound smoothly the same no matter the composer, that indeed if I didn't have total a lack of taste that they clearly think they have, that I would then reject Karajan, well, frankly I have two words for that person. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to determine what they are.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> I don't know for sure what processing was done in the control room, recording engineers tend to be pretty secretive about their various techniques, ime....a good friend of mine, a professional recording engineer, has speculated that such gain-riding appears apparent....and that is certainly consistent with the disparity between playback volume and tone quality
> 
> fair question, but the answer is NO, I don't think it is possible...let me put it this way - would it be possible, with your own voice, to *shout* at maximum volume level...but have your voice "sound" [have the timbral quality] as it does when you are in a normal, quiet "one on one" conversation?? I don't think so...loud voice, shouting, sounds different from low, conversational voice.


There is no significant gain-riding in Karajan's recordings, at least not in loud direction (I do suspect some pull downs sometimes.) I am never fooled by such cheap tricks. When the orchestra is those recordings is loud in the recording, the tone color is also loud. And this apparent also in any number of bootlegs, which had zero processing done, that one can find.

Anyone who says there's significant gain riding in Karajan recordings is full of crap.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Perhaps Karajan had particular success with _Ein Heldenleben_ because its supremely egoistic narrative of overcoming the critics through sheer willpower resounded particularly with his personality

Only joking. I agree that his Strauss is darned near superlative - glorious sonic splendor. As far as Furtwangler, I don't think you'll get any denial from me, or Brahmsianhorn, or any other Furty fanatic, that the orchestral playing can be sloppy, the tempi erratic, the rhythms irregular, etc. etc. etc. It is exactly this sort of human imperfection, this digging into the heart of the score, this interpreting on the spot, that hooks me with its piercingly poignant power. I certainly think that Furtwangler _could_ have provided a steady beat if he wanted to, but he didn't want to because he thought music was about something deeper than exterior perfection. It's certainly not for everyone, but if you're willing to look past the surface and hear a group of musicians, led by an eccentric but visionary interpreter, molding their own artistic visions on the spot; perhaps you will have more success with his recordings. In his Bayreuth 9th - the recording that converted me to him - the first time I heard it, I detected a deeply special undercurrent running through the playing, like the musicians were pouring every ounce of strength and imagination into every note. I've still never heard anything like it, and every time I hear it I remain astounded at how fortunate we are to have such a monumental event on record. Obviously it connects with some people, and other people are left scratching their heads wondering how anyone could possibly like such a scrappy and idiosyncratic performance. I sincerely hope that we can politely debate the merits of performances, share our subjective experiences, and learn to accept the valuable opinions of those who we disagree with. In respect of the opinions of Knorf, Matthew, and the others on this thread whose experience I value, I will listen to some of Karajan's Beethoven tomorrow morning to see if my opinions have changed.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Of course no one manipulates tempo the way Furtwängler does. But nor do I want them to, frankly. Too often (not always, but more than I like) the tempo shifts in Furtwängler are just weird, and make me wonder if he was even capable of holding a steady tempo. And his orchestras were always really sloppy. I am glad I've heard those recordings, even the wartime ones, but I never felt I needed to own them, to live with them. They're too weird to live with in my collection, frankly, and far too sloppy.


....and this is why you like Karajan. What sounds weird to you sounds perfectly natural and musical to me. What sounds perfect to you sounds manicured and lifeless to me.


----------



## Guest

@Knorf:

What a pleasure to read your comments here on Karajan!! (I admit I did choke on my Weeties reading that Kleiber comment, though!)

You obviously know what you're talking about and it always impresses me when people stand up against the mob or group and defend a position; there's sadly so little of that nowadays. Here's your singular statement about the dangers of groupthink. How many millions live this way unquestioningly following the group!!?

_I had listened too closely to the Karajan nay-sayers. I was sure in moving away from Karajan I had grown up into greater subtlety and sophistication, and better taste. HAH.
_

Apropos the quality of performances and all the issues you discuss with regard to interpretation; there isn't anything a recording studio can do about sloppy playing (and I must admit I've not been able to detect this...just cloth-eared, I guess!) there remains the question of how much is the conductor and how much the sound engineer? Would this not also be an exponential problem in the digital age with the ability to alter balance not only between sections but within sections of the orchestra? I suspect this is a major reason why Kleiber felt such antipathy towards recording his work, though he hasn't explicitly said so in anything I've read. But he did detest recording his work. The "Tristan und Isolde" episode is a case in point; he was furious with the results and had a major 'tanty' thereafter.

And also, please; what is _schwungvoll_?


----------



## BachIsBest

DavidA said:


> I am flabbergasted you choose this as an example when the Penguin Guide points out the sheer eruption of exuberance at that point. Obviously hearing a different performance than you - or me! Karajan outdoes all others including Furtwangler at Bayreuth which was a pretty damp squib.


I actually prefer Fürtwangler at Bayreuth to any Karajan 9th. There's nothing wrong with Karajan, I prefer him at certain points (his 1st movement, for example, is more exhilarating than Fürtwangler's), but Fürtwangler brings a sense of magic and spontaneity that I don't think Karjan quite has. Plus he has better soloist; I don't know if any soprano moves me as Schwarzkopf does in the finale.

This may sound completely crazy to many participants in this thread but can't both Karajan and Fürtwangler be great? My "big three" amongst conductors are Karajan, Klemperer, and Fürtwangler. I didn't realise this was such sacrilege.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Anyone who says there's significant gain riding in Karajan recordings is full of crap.


Then perhaps there was spot-miking, or section-miking??....techniques that are certainly not unknown in the recording industry...that could achieve the same disparity between tone quality and volume level...this to me has become increasingly apparent as I've been listening to more and more YouTube, Spotify tracks, many of which, I believe, may be live concert recordings....essentially unprocessed. My suspicions remain.
Control-room processing is certainly not unknown - CBS did it for Ormandy/Phila, for the "Philadephia sound"...Decca did it wholesale for those Mehta/LAPO recordings...
I also heard Karajan/BPO live, Carnegie Hall, albeit a long time back...excellent, orchestra sounded fine, but the sound, dynamic level was not overwhelming...at the time, I was hearing lots of Philadelphia, NYPO, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Boston, AmericanSO, RochesterPO, etc, so I had a pretty solid basis for comparison...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

BachIsBest said:


> This may sound completely crazy to many participants in this thread but can't both Karajan and Fürtwangler be great? My "big three" amongst conductors are Karajan, Klemperer, and Fürtwangler. I didn't realise this was such sacrilege.


Of course they can all be great! All three of those conductors aimed for totally different things and got the results they wanted. They affect me differently depending on what I'm looking for - burnished, luscious beauty (Karajan), unwavering discipline and commitment (Klemperer), and breathless spontaneity and imagination (Furtwangler). All three have the potential to move me depending on what I feel like. I think that the mark of a healthy listener is being able to keep your options and preferences open. Much as I love Furt it'd be pretty boring if every conductor sounded like him...


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> This may sound completely crazy to many participants in this thread but can't both Karajan and Fürtwangler be great? My "big three" amongst conductors are Karajan, Klemperer, and Fürtwangler. I didn't realise this was such sacrilege.


That's not crazy at all, at least IMO...that's great, to each his own...great music can thrive with many different styles and approaches....Reiner, Monteux, Toscanini are three of my favorites, and they are hardly clones of one another...


----------



## Merl

So tonight I returned to Karajan's 1977 9th from his cycle to re-acquaint myself with it and to see if I could detect any homegenised sound, any rounding of corners. As you know I've got in excess of 150 LVB cycles (and with extra individual recordings probably over 200 9ths — yeah I know... Sad!) so it takes some recording to impress me. The HvK 63 was my first vinyl set and has kind of become a benchmark just because of the sheer quality of that cycle but others have surpassed it for me. Anyway, I digress. I have always favoured HvK's 63 set above the 77 and, tbh, haven't played the 77 set for quite a few years. So I fired up my AKGs, pressed play on the CD player and listened. One of the first things I noticed (apart from the excellent recording for the time) is the sheer power of the Berliners. This is not an orchestra operating in 3rd gear. They start with a bang and its big and bold. 
The 2nd movement plays to HvK's strengths of rhythmic intensity (there are few who can match his sense of rhythm, so important in Beethoven. It dances and skips. Still no slickness, just tight ensemble playing. No scrappiness but still no smoothness, just irresistible forward momentum. The adagio is relaxed and lifting without being insipid or distended in length and still none of this 'blending' I'm expecting to hear. I was still waiting to hear the stereotypical 'smoothness' by the time I hit the finale but guess what? It's a high octane finale, foot pressed firmly to the floor. Tbh, I've always said Herbie's 60s 9th is the king of his cycle but this one is at least it's equal and possibly betters it. I turned off and thought, "Damn that was good". Never once was I convinced that the performance was ever less than full throttle. Never once did I ever feel as though the orchestra were cruising on autopilot. This was big-band Beethoven, the type that I grew up with but can often sound anachronistic in these days of leaner recordings with clearer, digitised sound. Yep, hands up I thoroughly enjoyed it. Funnily enough I read a review a few years ago on Classics Today by a critic (not Hurwitz or Carr for once but can't remember who) who was reviewing the bluray re-release of the 77 cycle. He said the same thing, that he came expecting one thing and left in admiration at the quality of the music-making. I'm a bit snowed under with Beethoven listening at the moment (yep there will probably be another part to my incessant cycle reviews coming in the not too distant future) but I will return to this set again soon as I'd forgotten how bloody good it is. Its not smooth, it's not homogenised or slick, it's just damn fine Beethoven from a conductor who understood that good Beethoven doesn't have to be Wagnerianly romanticised, hurried, wayward, HIP, scrappily played, sound like it was recorded in a shed at the dawn of time or dragged from pillar to post. It just needs to sound sincere and loved. I'm glad I took the time to reacquaint myself.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Perhaps Karajan had particular success with _Ein Heldenleben_ because its supremely egoistic narrative of overcoming the critics through sheer willpower resounded particularly with his personality
> 
> Only joking. I agree that his Strauss is darned near superlative - glorious sonic splendor. As far as Furtwangler, I don't think you'll get any denial from me, or Brahmsianhorn, or any other Furty fanatic, that the orchestral playing can be sloppy, the tempi erratic, the rhythms irregular, etc. etc. etc. It is exactly this sort of human imperfection, this digging into the heart of the score, this interpreting on the spot, that hooks me with its piercingly poignant power. I certainly think that Furtwangler _could_ have provided a steady beat if he wanted to, but he didn't want to because he thought music was about something deeper than exterior perfection. It's certainly not for everyone, but if you're willing to look past the surface and hear a group of musicians, led by an eccentric but visionary interpreter, molding their own artistic visions on the spot; perhaps you will have more success with his recordings. In his Bayreuth 9th - the recording that converted me to him - the first time I heard it, I detected a deeply special undercurrent running through the playing, like the musicians were pouring every ounce of strength and imagination into every note. I've still never heard anything like it, and every time I hear it I remain astounded at how fortunate we are to have such a monumental event on record. Obviously it connects with some people, and other people are left scratching their heads wondering how anyone could possibly like such a scrappy and idiosyncratic performance. I sincerely hope that we can politely debate the merits of performances, share our subjective experiences, and learn to accept the valuable opinions of those who we disagree with. In respect of the opinions of Knorf, Matthew, and the others on this thread whose experience I value, I will listen to some of Karajan's Beethoven tomorrow morning to see if my opinions have changed.


Listen to the 77 Eroica. If you need it, I can share it with you.


----------



## adriesba

Hearing at least parts of Karajan's recordings of Beethoven's ninth symphony is part of why I am so perplexed by the negative opinions about Karajan.

\/ If you like Beethoven's ninth symphony, this is a must watch! 
Plus, it has four legendary singers! \/


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Merl said:


> So tonight I returned to Karajan's 1977 9th from his cycle to re-acquaint myself with it and to see if I could detect any homegenised sound, any rounding of corners. As you know I've got in excess of 150 LVB cycles (and with extra individual recordings probably over 200 9ths - yeah I know... Sad!) so it takes some recording to impress me. The HvK 63 was my first vinyl set and has kind of become a benchmark just because of the sheer quality of that cycle but others have surpassed it for me. Anyway, I digress. I have always favoured HvK's 63 set above the 77 and, tbh, haven't played the 77 set for quite a few years. So I fired up my AKGs, pressed play on the CD player and listened. One of the first things I noticed (apart from the excellent recording for the time) is the sheer power of the Berliners. This is not an orchestra operating in 3rd gear. They start with a bang and its big and bold.
> The 2nd movement plays to HvK's strengths of rhythmic intensity (there are few who can match his sense of rhythm, so important in Beethoven. It dances and skips. Still no slickness, just tight ensemble playing. No scrappiness but still no smoothness, just irresistible forward momentum. The adagio is relaxed and lifting without being insipid or distended in length and still none of this 'blending' I'm expecting to hear. I was still waiting to hear the stereotypical 'smoothness' by the time I hit the finale but guess what? It's a high octane finale, foot pressed firmly to the floor. Tbh, I've always said Herbie's 60s 9th is the king of his cycle but this one is at least it's equal and possibly betters it. I turned off and thought, "Damn that was good". Never once was I convinced that the performance was ever less than full throttle. Never once did I ever feel as though the orchestra were cruising on autopilot. This was big-band Beethoven, the type that I grew up with but can often sound anachronistic in these days of leaner recordings with clearer, digitised sound. Yep, hands up I thoroughly enjoyed it. Funnily enough I read a review a few years ago on Classics Today by a critic (not Hurwitz or Carr for once but can't remember who) who was reviewing the bluray re-release of the 77 cycle. He said the same thing, that he came expecting one thing and left in admiration at the quality of the music-making. I'm a bit snowed under with Beethoven listening at the moment (yep there will probably be another part to my incessant cycle reviews coming in the not too distant future) but I will return to this set again soon as I'd forgotten how bloody good it is. Its not smooth, it's not homogenised or slick, it's just damn fine Beethoven from a conductor who understood that good Beethoven doesn't have to be Wagnerianly romanticised, hurried, wayward, HIP, scrappily played, sound like it was recorded in a shed at the dawn of time or dragged from pillar to post. It just needs to sound sincere and loved. I'm glad I took the time to reacquaint myself.


The 1st and 2nd in the 77 cycle have some lovely attacks with the strings, very "classical," if you will.


----------



## Barbebleu

Christabel said:


> @Knorf:
> 
> And also, please; what is _schwungvoll_?


Snappy, punchy, exhilarating, rousing, energetic!


----------



## Guest

Merl said:


> So tonight I returned to Karajan's 1977 9th from his cycle to re-acquaint myself with it and to see if I could detect any homegenised sound, any rounding of corners. As you know I've got in excess of 150 LVB cycles (and with extra individual recordings probably over 200 9ths - yeah I know... Sad!) so it takes some recording to impress me. The HvK 63 was my first vinyl set and has kind of become a benchmark just because of the sheer quality of that cycle but others have surpassed it for me. Anyway, I digress. I have always favoured HvK's 63 set above the 77 and, tbh, haven't played the 77 set for quite a few years. So I fired up my AKGs, pressed play on the CD player and listened. One of the first things I noticed (apart from the excellent recording for the time) is the sheer power of the Berliners. This is not an orchestra operating in 3rd gear. They start with a bang and its big and bold.
> The 2nd movement plays to HvK's strengths of rhythmic intensity (there are few who can match his sense of rhythm, so important in Beethoven. It dances and skips. Still no slickness, just tight ensemble playing. No scrappiness but still no smoothness, just irresistible forward momentum. The adagio is relaxed and lifting without being insipid or distended in length and still none of this 'blending' I'm expecting to hear. I was still waiting to hear the stereotypical 'smoothness' by the time I hit the finale but guess what? It's a high octane finale, foot pressed firmly to the floor. Tbh, I've always said Herbie's 60s 9th is the king of his cycle but this one is at least it's equal and possibly betters it. I turned off and thought, "Damn that was good". Never once was I convinced that the performance was ever less than full throttle. Never once did I ever feel as though the orchestra were cruising on autopilot. This was big-band Beethoven, the type that I grew up with but can often sound anachronistic in these days of leaner recordings with clearer, digitised sound. Yep, hands up I thoroughly enjoyed it. Funnily enough I read a review a few years ago on Classics Today by a critic (not Hurwitz or Carr for once but can't remember who) who was reviewing the bluray re-release of the 77 cycle. He said the same thing, that he came expecting one thing and left in admiration at the quality of the music-making. I'm a bit snowed under with Beethoven listening at the moment (yep there will probably be another part to my incessant cycle reviews coming in the not too distant future) but I will return to this set again soon as I'd forgotten how bloody good it is. Its not smooth, it's not homogenised or slick, it's just damn fine Beethoven from a conductor who understood that good Beethoven doesn't have to be Wagnerianly romanticised, hurried, wayward, HIP, scrappily played, sound like it was recorded in a shed at the dawn of time or dragged from pillar to post. It just needs to sound sincere and loved. I'm glad I took the time to reacquaint myself.


Very enjoyable read!!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I have always held the ‘77 Karajan 9th in high esteem and preferred it to the more straight-laced 60s version. It is IMO Karajan’s greatest Beethoven recording alongside the 60s 4th and 8th.

My one quibble, and its a major one, is the low octane choir. Herbie for some reason wanted a thin, watered down choral presence as opposed to the mass of sound we are used to. 

My top studio Beethoven 9ths in order are:

Fricsay
Bernstein ‘79
Böhm ‘72
Karajan ‘77
Bernstein ‘89
Solti ‘72

And my top live (and overall) 9ths are:

Furtwängler ‘42, ‘51, ‘54
Klemperer ‘57, ‘61


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Going off Matthew's prior post on Karajan's sensuousness, I think that is indeed his predominant trait and one that works very well in certain repertoire.

I was thinking about adjectives that generally describe different maestros, and the funny thing is how you can see these traits demonstrated in photos:

Karajan - sensuousness









Furtwangler - spirituality









Bernstein - emotion









Toscanini - precision









Klemperer - authority


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Beecham - elegance









Kleiber - energy









Szell - discipline









Barbirolli - passion









Walter - sensitivity


----------



## Guest

Kleiber: PASSION


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Christabel said:


> Kleiber: PASSION


I think that more describes Barbirolli. It was like he was making love with the music, Whereas with Kleiber it was always this kinetic energy most obviously in the opening movement of Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## Radames

DavidA said:


> Heard the Don Carlo? I think dispassionate is the last word I'd describe it as! The problem isHeck148 appears to have this thing about the way he hears Karajan's sound when a lot of people hear the opposite.


I have not heard that Don. I didn't like his Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, and the later Brahms recordings. I liked his 60's Beethoven and Sibelius.


----------



## DavidA

MatthewWeflen said:


> Listen to the 77 Eroica. If you need it, I can share it with you.


The Eroica from the 83 cycle is amazing too!


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> The Eroica from the 83 cycle is amazing too!


Yup, some consider it to be the best _Eroica_ Karajan recorded!


----------



## Guest

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think that more describes Barbirolli. It was like he was making love with the music, Whereas with Kleiber it was always this kinetic energy most obviously in the opening movement of Beethoven's 5th.


Fair enough. You obviously know what you're talking about!:tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

Just to add that I do not believe that Karajan’s is the only way of doing Beethoven. I have complete cycles by Klemperer, Norrington, Toscanini, Gardiner, Chailly, Mackerras, and odd recordings of the symphonies by the likes of Beecham, Both Kleibers, Fuerwangler, Stokowski, Bernstein. So Herbie is not the only way I look at Beethoven. There are many ways of doing this great genius


----------



## Merl

The reason I entered the fray here in this thread was not to glorify Karajan (far from it) but because I get a bit fed up of the endless stereotypes applied to all conductors but particularly to him. Karajan was lots of things but he was never some sort of unimpassioned charlatan or James Last style classical jukebox who never gave his all for his art. I say to everyone on here, listen. *Make your own mind up.* No-one needs me to tell you what Beethoven to buy or Duggan to tell you what Mahler to get, or Hurwitz and Co to tell you what to avoid.... They're just guides. We re all critics and critics can be wrong. Take every recording piece by piece. Not all historical recordings are bad or great, not all of the great names of conducting made exemplary recordings, not all HIP is bad or great, not every digital recording sounds processed, don't believe the hype. Listen and make your own mind up. We have favourite recordings and some people fanboy certain conductors to the point of excess but we need to accept what we hear rather than perceive it to be true because so and so told us so. When you put up those well-intentioned (and lovely) pictures of conductors with words to describe them, BHS, again that was stereotyping. It wasnt devisive or insincere and I understand that you were only trying to positively touch on the aspects of those conductors that you admired but is every Walter recording sensitive, every Szell performance disciplined, every Toscanini account precise? No. I'm not ashamed to say I've changed my mind on recordings over the years. I've lambasted some performances and then years later praised them. I still have a number of recordings that operate in the love/hate hinterland, where I've changed my view on them numerous times over the years (eg Karajan's Schumann cycle or Klemperer's Mahler) but that shows that those opinions are not hard and fast. I can be swayed by my own ears. The reason I revisited LvB's 77 Ninth, yesterday, was genuinely to listen again (it really has been years since I played it) to see if I could hear the slick, well-rounded, smooth, creamy, luxurious, cold, mechanical, opulent (please insert any stereotype you've heard about HvK here) sound. I didn't hear those stereotypes. I heard the legato but that's nothing new in old LVB performances. I heard a lot of things but I also heard damn good music-making and the unmistakable sound of the BPO (they continue to have a sound so distinct Ive picked them out of the last 5 blind comparisons on here even with conductors long after Karajan) but they weren't playing half-a*sed. They were in full flow. The brass section seemed louder than I remember, the choir a little further back in the mix than I recall. Yes, I obviously enjoyed it but it's good to check. It's good to question yourself and take a reality check. That's why I enjoy the blind comparisons on this site. I know I'm going to be challenged and it's not to catch me out, it's to make me listen (the latest Beethoven 7 one was particularly enjoyable - thanks Becca) to new recordings, older, rarer ones or new digital concert hall performances . No pre-conceived bias... Just listening. Anyway I'm going on. Remember, stereotypes are dangerous. Don't always believe what you're told.


----------



## flamencosketches

Merl said:


> The reason I entered the fray here in this thread was not to glorify Karajan (far from it) but because I get a bit fed up of the endless stereotypes applied to all conductors but particularly to him. Karajan was lots of things but he was never some sort of unimpassioned charlatan or James Last style classical jukebox who never gave his all for his art. I say to everyone on here, listen. *Make your own mind up.* No-one needs me to tell you what Beethoven to buy or Duggan to tell you what Mahler to get, or Hurwitz and Co to tell you what to avoid.... They're just guides. We re all critics and critics can be wrong. Take every recording piece by piece. Not all historical recordings are bad or great, not all of the great names of conducting made exemplary recordings, not all HIP is bad or great, not every digital recording sounds processed, don't believe the hype. Listen and make your own mind up. We have favourite recordings and some people fanboy certain conductors to the point of excess but we need to accept what we hear rather than perceive it to be true because so and so told us so. When you put up those well-intentioned (and lovely) pictures of conductors with words to describe them, BHS, again that was stereotyping. It wasnt devisive or insincere and I understand that you were only trying to positively touch on the aspects of those conductors that you admired but is every Walter recording sensitive, every Szell performance disciplined, every Toscanini account precise? No. I'm not ashamed to say I've changed my mind on recordings over the years. I've lambasted some performances and then years later praised them. I still have a number of recordings that operate in the love/hate hinterland, where I've changed my view on them numerous times over the years (eg Karajan's Schumann cycle or Klemperer's Mahler) but that shows that those opinions are not hard and fast. I can be swayed by my own ears. The reason I revisited LvB's 77 Ninth, yesterday, was genuinely to listen again (it really has been years since I played it) to see if I could hear the slick, well-rounded, smooth, creamy, luxurious, cold, mechanical, opulent (please insert any stereotype you've heard about HvK here) sound. I didn't hear those stereotypes. I heard the legato but that's nothing new in old LVB performances. I heard a lot of things but I also heard damn good music-making and the unmistakable sound of the BPO (they continue to have a sound so distinct Ive picked them out of the last 5 blind comparisons on here even with conductors long after Karajan) but they weren't playing half-a*sed. They were in full flow. The brass section seemed louder than I remember, the choir a little further back in the mix than I recall. Yes, I obviously enjoyed it but it's good to check. It's good to question yourself and take a reality check. That's why I enjoy the blind comparisons on this site. I know I'm going to be challenged and it's not to catch me out, it's to make me listen (the latest Beethoven 7 one was particularly enjoyable - thanks Becca) to new recordings, older, rarer ones or new digital concert hall performances . No pre-conceived bias... Just listening. Anyway I'm going on. Remember, stereotypes are dangerous. Don't always believe what you're told.


[/thread]

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


----------



## DavidA

Merl;1814020. Remember said:


> I think this is a general point to remember and that critics are not unaffected by it. There was that notorious's case of Joyce Hatto where critics praised 'her' recordings of certain works to the skies having been decidedly cool about them when they were released under the name of the real artist. Critics are great followers of fashion


----------



## millionrainbows

This is a great set to have. I've been enjoying it immensely.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> When you put up those well-intentioned (and lovely) pictures of conductors with words to describe them, BHS, again that was stereotyping. It wasnt devisive or insincere and I understand that you were only trying to positively touch on the aspects of those conductors that you admired *but is every Walter recording sensitive, every Szell performance disciplined, every Toscanini account precise*? No. I'm not ashamed to say I've changed my mind on recordings over the years.


Why does everyone on this board feel the need to refute others with absolutes? I never said or implied any of that.

This entire thread has devolved into "if you don't think Karajan is the greatest conductor in history then you must believe he is an unlistenable charlatan." Is there no middle ground anymore?

Of course conductors don't fit absolutely into only one mood at all times in all repertoire. That doesn't mean you cannot associate conductors with certain traits that represented their strong suit. Quite frankly I miss the days when musicians stood for something as opposed to being generic copies of one other afraid to offend by being individuals. I don't agree with musical relativism, where everything is equally valid. I like it when artists have ideals and principles they strive for and disagree upon. It makes it interesting!

One thing you obviously miss is that if I am able to associate such disparate traits to these different conductors, it must obviously mean that I value and listen to them each, must it not? I like the variety.

And incidentally, it is insulting to insinuate that anyone on this board comes to their opinions through stereotyping as opposed to open-minded listening. How do you think we came to our opinions in the first place?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *Why does everyone on this board feel the need to refute others with absolutes? I never said or implied any of that.*
> 
> This entire thread has devolved into "if you don't think Karajan is the greatest conductor in history then you must believe he is an unlistenable charlatan." Is there no middle ground anymore?
> 
> Of course conductors don't fit absolutely into only one mood at all times in all repertoire. That doesn't mean you cannot associate conductors with certain traits that represented their strong suit. Quite frankly I miss the days when musicians stood for something as opposed to being generic copies of one other afraid to offend by being individuals. I don't agree with musical relativism, where everything is equally valid. I like it when artists have ideals and principles they strive for and disagree upon. It makes it interesting!
> 
> One thing you obviously miss is that if I am able to associate such disparate traits to these different conductors, it must obviously mean that I value and listen to them each, must it not? I like the variety.
> 
> And incidentally, it is insulting to insinuate that anyone on this board comes to their opinions through stereotyping as opposed to open-minded listening. How do you think we came to our opinions in the first place?


If you read some of your previous posts you come very near to that! I mean when ou make a statement like: 'It is clear as day in the recordings and accentuated by the visual Karajan's manicured movements'. Sounds pretty absolute to me!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> If you read some of your previous posts you come very near to that! I mean when ou make a statement like: 'It is clear as day in the recordings and accentuated by the visual Karajan's manicured movements'. Sounds pretty absolute to me!


Absolute would be like saying Karajan is incapable of ever being spontaneous, which I have never said.

And I was specifically referencing a posted video when I made the observation about Karajan's movements. So we can no longer watch, listen, make observations and express opinions on this board? Sounds like a lot of fun.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Be gentle with me; this is my first post - and this seems to be a thread that is on occasion a little tetchy.
Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Eclectic Al said:


> Be gentle with me; this is my first post - and this seems to be a thread that is on occasion a little tetchy.
> Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


If there is one point of consensus on this thread it is that Karajan's Strauss was excellent. He was very well suited to it. I would say next would be Bruckner.

Unfortunately some are making this thread into an exercise where if you don't believe Karajan was a god at conducting Beethoven then you are saying he was terrible at everything. Cheap straw man debate trick.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolute would be like saying Karajan is incapable of ever being spontaneous, which I have never said.
> 
> And I was specifically referencing a posted video when I made the observation about Karajan's movements. So we can no longer watch, listen, make observations and express opinions on this board? Sounds like a lot of fun.


Now you're talking in another absolute. I never said that


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> So tonight I returned to Karajan's 1977 9th from his cycle to re-acquaint myself with it and to see if I could detect any homegenised sound, any rounding of corners. As you know I've got in excess of 150 LVB cycles (and with extra individual recordings probably over 200 9ths - yeah I know... Sad!) so it takes some recording to impress me. The HvK 63 was my first vinyl set and has kind of become a benchmark just because of the sheer quality of that cycle but others have surpassed it for me. Anyway, I digress. I have always favoured HvK's 63 set above the 77 and, tbh, haven't played the 77 set for quite a few years. So I fired up my AKGs, pressed play on the CD player and listened. One of the first things I noticed (apart from the excellent recording for the time) is the sheer power of the Berliners. This is not an orchestra operating in 3rd gear. They start with a bang and its big and bold.
> The 2nd movement plays to HvK's strengths of rhythmic intensity (there are few who can match his sense of rhythm, so important in Beethoven. It dances and skips. Still no slickness, just tight ensemble playing. No scrappiness but still no smoothness, just irresistible forward momentum. The adagio is relaxed and lifting without being insipid or distended in length and still none of this 'blending' I'm expecting to hear. I was still waiting to hear the stereotypical 'smoothness' by the time I hit the finale but guess what? It's a high octane finale, foot pressed firmly to the floor. Tbh, I've always said Herbie's 60s 9th is the king of his cycle but this one is at least it's equal and possibly betters it. I turned off and thought, "Damn that was good". Never once was I convinced that the performance was ever less than full throttle. Never once did I ever feel as though the orchestra were cruising on autopilot. This was big-band Beethoven, the type that I grew up with but can often sound anachronistic in these days of leaner recordings with clearer, digitised sound. Yep, hands up I thoroughly enjoyed it. Funnily enough I read a review a few years ago on Classics Today by a critic (not Hurwitz or Carr for once but can't remember who) who was reviewing the bluray re-release of the 77 cycle. He said the same thing, that he came expecting one thing and left in admiration at the quality of the music-making. I'm a bit snowed under with Beethoven listening at the moment (yep there will probably be another part to my incessant cycle reviews coming in the not too distant future) but I will return to this set again soon as I'd forgotten how bloody good it is. Its not smooth, it's not homogenised or slick, it's just damn fine Beethoven from a conductor who understood that good Beethoven doesn't have to be Wagnerianly romanticised, hurried, wayward, HIP, scrappily played, sound like it was recorded in a shed at the dawn of time or dragged from pillar to post. It just needs to sound sincere and loved. I'm glad I took the time to reacquaint myself.


I have a challenge for you: Listen to Bernstein's VPO 9th with the same open mind as you just employed for Karajan's '77 BPO 9th


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> If there is one point of consensus on this thread it is that Karajan's Strauss was excellent. He was very well suited to it. I would say next would be Bruckner.
> 
> Unfortunately some are making this thread into an exercise where *if you don't believe Karajan was a god at conducting Beethoven then you are saying he was terrible at everything.* Cheap straw man debate trick.


You\'re talking in absolutes again. No-one is saying that


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I have a challenge for you: Listen to Bernstein's VPO 9th with the same open mind as you just employed for Karajan's '77 BPO 9th


I have both in my library and I did. I prefer Karajan's


----------



## Flamme

Sum ppl treid 2 provoke him...


----------



## JAS

This thread has more straw men than a corn field near harvest time.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Eclectic Al said:


> Be gentle with me; this is my first post - and this seems to be a thread that is on occasion a little tetchy.
> Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


Indeed, there are very few people who will seriously criticize Karajan's Strauss. These three recordings are (IMHO) peerless:

Eine Alpensinfonie:







Also Sprach Zarathustra:







Metamorphosen (with Tod und Varklarung):








I think perhaps the criticism of Karajan lacking emotion is a different way of saying that he was emotionally compatible to a greater degree with certain types of music - Strauss chief among them. I think his Bruckner and Tchaikovsky also possess gobs of emotion.


----------



## Merl

DavidA said:


> I have both in my library and I did. I prefer Karajan's


I did too. I still much prefer Karajan's. I thought this thread was about Karajan not Bernstein???? I'm no Bernstein hater...far from it.


----------



## flamencosketches

MatthewWeflen said:


> I think perhaps the criticism of Karajan lacking emotion is a different way of saying that he was emotionally compatible to a greater degree with certain types of music - Strauss chief among them. I think his Bruckner and Tchaikovsky also possess gobs of emotion.


Agreed. Karajan's Bruckner is a little _too_ emotional for me.


----------



## Heck148

Eclectic Al said:


> Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


Welcome, EA...
He's ok with Strauss...I prefer a few others - Reiner, Solti, Mehta, Toscanini, Szell, but Herbie is ok...


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Bramsianhorn, here is the best way I can think of to talk about your style of posting and why it seems to rub some (myself included) the wrong way.

I am a huge Star Trek fan. Massive. I've seen it all. I run a Star Trek blog. But I absolutely loathe "Star Trek" post 2009. Frequently, I sum up my criticism like this: "Some people want different things out of Star Trek. I want science fiction morality tales that ask big questions and explore them at a deep level that engages the intellect. Other people don't find those things important. I guess that's fine."

Now, I think it's clear to see that I am putting forward my vision of Star Trek as superior, and passively denigrating the opposing view. I do not go so far as to charitably characterize the opposing view. I don't say "Some people prefer their Star Trek to be full of explosions and space battles and shock twists, which can be exciting." I don't say it because I don't believe they're exciting. I believe they're dumb. So, by omission, I am setting forth a straw man as my opposing view (but my blog is not a conversation in which I must strive to preserve civility with an interlocutor).

I think at times you do that here.

To wit:


> My goodness, what a stark night and day difference!!! Thanks for posting this. It summarizes the entire thread.
> 
> The outer shell of the Furtwangler performance is there with Karajan. Like I have always said, a generalized, reliable interpretation. But Karajan completely misses the freedom and spontaneity that are the key to Furtwangler's greatness. With Karajan everything is controlled and manicured, placed exactly as are the hairs on his head. And the edges are softened, just as many have said. Entrances that with Furtwangler are appropriately hard and jolting are softened and "beautified" with Karajan. Again, imposing his own aesthetic onto Beethoven. This is the answer to the question of why Karajan is not often people's favorite interpretation.
> 
> I feel sorry for the BPO musicians who had to transition from Furtwangler's wonderful openness and freedom to Karajan's control and constraint. He co-opted this incredible orchestra and sound that Furtwangler had built and mass marketed it. There is something grotesque about it. Karajan did not build on Furtwangler's legacy. He commercializied it. He took a tasty, well-crafted burger and turned it into McDonald's.


Now, of course, there is a legitimate debate as to whether this kind of posting is useful and appropriate. I think it may well be. It would be bland sauce if no one ever expressed a preference. But I think you get a bit unduly wounded when people push back, which they naturally will when you put things forward in such black and white terms.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Eclectic Al said:


> Be gentle with me; this is my first post - and this seems to be a thread that is on occasion a little tetchy.
> Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


I am pretty sure that almost everyone on here agrees that HvK's Strauss is excellent. As a Strauss fan, I certainly think so. That said, I prefer two of the other premier Strauss interpreters: Fritz Reiner and Wolfgang Sawallisch.

Yes, this thread has gotten tetchy, but I find it entertaining and edifying. I guess philistines like me can acknowledge HvK as a genius while not necessarily preferring his recordings, as we watch other members with stronger opinions battle it out.


----------



## annaw

Heck148 said:


> Welcome, EA...
> He's ok with Strauss...I prefer a few others - Reiner, Solti, Mehta, Toscanini, Szell, but Herbie is ok...


It feels that Strauss thought Karajan was a bit better than just ok .
That's from HvK's Wikipedia page:



> Likewise, Richard Strauss was a continual force in Karajan's life, not just as a composer, but as a conductor as well. Karajan regaled their only 'proper' meeting, in 1939, to Osborne, stating that "at the end [of a performance of Elektra in Berlin] he [Strauss] came and said to me it was the best performance of the opera he had ever heard. I said, 'I don't really want to hear this; tell me what was wrong with it.' I think he was surprised by my reaction, so he asked me to lunch the next day.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I did too. I still much prefer Karajan's. I thought this thread was about Karajan not Bernstein???? I'm no Bernstein hater...far from it.
> 
> View attachment 134453


So challenge not accepted?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Bramsianhorn, here is the best way I can think of to talk about your style of posting and why it seems to rub some (myself included) the wrong way.
> 
> I am a huge Star Trek fan. Massive. I've seen it all. I run a Star Trek blog. But I absolutely loathe "Star Trek" post 2009. Frequently, I sum up my criticism like this: "Some people want different things out of Star Trek. I want science fiction morality tales that ask big questions and explore them at a deep level that engages the intellect. Other people don't find those things important. I guess that's fine."
> 
> Now, I think it's clear to see that I am putting forward my vision of Star Trek as superior, and passively denigrating the opposing view. I do not go so far as to charitably characterize the opposing view. I don't say "Some people prefer their Star Trek to be full of explosions and space battles and shock twists, which can be exciting." I don't say it because I don't believe they're exciting. I believe they're dumb. So, by omission, I am setting forth a straw man as my opposing view (but my blog is not a conversation in which I must strive to preserve civility with an interlocutor).
> 
> I think at times you do that here.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> Now, of course, there is a legitimate debate as to whether this kind of posting is useful and appropriate. I think it may well be. It would be bland sauce if no one ever expressed a preference. *But I think you get a bit unduly wounded when people push back*, which they naturally will when you put things forward in such black and white terms.


I stand by every word of that post. It was an opinion to which I came honestly after having sampled both recordings back to back.

My friend I do not get wounded in the least bit when people push back. I wouldn't express strong opinions if I did not welcome the opinions of others simultaneously. What I object to is when people twist my words or mischaracterize my meanings. That is extremely frustrating, not wounding.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> So challenge not accepted?


I played it about 6 months ago. I never said I didn't like it. I think it's a good account. I'm just not keen on the rest of the cycle. If you'd asked me to try his Berlin Wall 9th again I'd have made any excuse like "I'm washing my hair" or "I'm washing the dog I don't have".


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I stand by every word of that post. It was an opinion to which I came honestly after having sampled both recordings back to back.
> 
> My friend I do not get wounded in the least bit when people push back. I wouldn't express strong opinions if I did not welcome the opinions of others simultaneously. *What I object to is when people twist my words or mischaracterize my meanings.* That is extremely frustrating, not wounding.


That's sort of a "welcome to the internet" situation. Or "welcome to human discourse generally."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> Indeed, there are very few people who will seriously criticize Karajan's Strauss. These three recordings are (IMHO) peerless:
> 
> Eine Alpensinfonie:
> View attachment 134450
> 
> Also Sprach Zarathustra:
> View attachment 134451
> 
> Metamorphosen (with Tod und Varklarung):
> View attachment 134452
> 
> 
> I think perhaps the criticism of Karajan lacking emotion is a different way of saying that he was emotionally compatible to a greater degree with certain types of music - Strauss chief among them. I think his Bruckner and Tchaikovsky also possess gobs of emotion.


All go-to accounts for modern sound quality, but I prefer these versions:


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> All go-to accounts for modern sound quality, but I prefer these versions:


You prefer Furtwangler? I would NOT have expected that!

:devil:


----------



## JAS

It is one thing to say "I prefer Bernstein's such and such recording of Beethoven's 9th to Karajan's such and such recording of the same work" and quite another to say something like "Karajan was a bad conductor" or "Karajan's interpretations lack emotion or range." I am not necessarily accusing anyone of making these statements. I use these merely as examples. Individual opinions on specific recordings are always valid, for that individual and those who happen to agree with the person posting that opinion. And they are invalid for those who have also heard them and have different opinions. We all need to accept that opinions on matters of opinion are personal, subject to exploration but not really questioning. It is the overly broad statements where people get into trouble.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> I played it about 6 months ago. I never said I didn't like it. I think it's a good account. I'm just not keen on the rest of the cycle. If you'd asked me to try his Berlin Wall 9th again I'd have made any excuse like "I'm washing my hair" or "I'm washing the dog I don't have".


What happened to listening anew with open ears?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> That's sort of a "welcome to the internet" situation. Or "welcome to human discourse generally."


Sure, and I have always been known to work tirelessly to correct the record


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

MatthewWeflen said:


> Listen to the 77 Eroica. If you need it, I can share it with you.


Well, it's certainly a wonderful account epitomizing Karajan's very high standards of orchestral sound and playing. I've noticed that he tends to do Beethoven in a very songful way - listen to how the main theme of the first movement is phrased. Nothing wrong with that - I like it quite a bit - but I still think this smooths over just the smallest bit of drama. Certainly the fullness of sound and perfection of execution is very impressive, and it never lost my interest. It's pristine in all ways - in balance, phrasing, structure, rhythm, dynamics (though...don't shoot me for stereotyping, but...his _fortissimos_ really are quite blunt and rounded). Like I've said, Karajan has a style that I turn to when I'm in the mood for it just like with many of his contemporaries. His Beethoven is rightfully lauded as a milestone of high standards for performance in this music. I love to hear him when I want to hear rich, full-bodied playing that reads the score beautifully. I'm not offended by his style at all - I just don't always feel like hearing it when there are so many other ways to approach the music, including ways that in my opinion, get a little deeper into the soul of the composer and interpret the notes rather than simply playing them. But I'm glad you suggested it to me as I was able to get a little bit more acquainted with HvK's Beethoven.


----------



## flamencosketches

I think this thread has convinced me to finally pull the trigger on one of Karajan's Beethoven cycles... leaning toward the '77 but I will do a bit more listening and comparing today. The digital cycle is out of the running; I'm torn between BPO '77, BPO '63 and Philharmonia/EMI mono.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> I think this thread has convinced me to finally pull the trigger on one of Karajan's Beethoven cycles... leaning toward the '77 but I will do a bit more listening and comparing today. The digital cycle is out of the running; I'm torn between BPO '77, BPO '63 and Philharmonia/EMI mono.


In my limited experience (so take my advice with a huge grain of salt) the '77 seems a bit more open and free. The sound is also amazing. I need to dig more into those Philharmonia recordings, I've heard he was quite a different conductor in those days.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I stand by every word of that post. It was an opinion to which I came honestly after having sampled both recordings back to back.
> 
> My friend I do not get wounded in the least bit when people push back. I wouldn't express strong opinions if I did not welcome the opinions of others simultaneously. *What I object to is when people twist my words or mischaracterize my meanings.* That is extremely frustrating, not wounding.


What you havetorealiseis when you go into print people interpret your words and take them at their face value. Thisisjust a fact of 5he printed page


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> In my limited experience (so take my advice with a huge grain of salt) the '77 seems a bit more open and free. The sound is also amazing. I need to dig more into those Philharmonia recordings, I've heard he was quite a different conductor in those days.


I hear similarly. I typically prefer the sound of '60s recordings to '70s, but the '60s Karajan Beethoven sounds a little congested to my ears. As for interpretation the two seem to be remarkably similar to one another. I wonder how many of the same musicians played on both recordings. The Philharmonia cycle is a different story. It definitely stands apart from the other three. I would agree that his conducting is quite different from what it would later become.


----------



## MatthewWeflen

flamencosketches said:


> I think this thread has convinced me to finally pull the trigger on one of Karajan's Beethoven cycles... leaning toward the '77 but I will do a bit more listening and comparing today. The digital cycle is out of the running; I'm torn between BPO '77, BPO '63 and Philharmonia/EMI mono.


I have all 4. In my opinion, the '77 has both the best sound and the best interpretation. It has faster tempii than the '63 and a more enveloping sound.

If you have the capability, the '77 Blu-Ray release is outstanding, but the CD version is also great.


----------



## flamencosketches

MatthewWeflen said:


> I have all 4. In my opinion, the '77 has both the best sound and the best interpretation. It has faster tempii than the '63 and a more enveloping sound.
> 
> If you have the capability, the '77 Blu-Ray release is outstanding, but the CD version is also great.


I pulled the trigger on '77, the CD cycle. People keep recommending Blu Rays to me, but I don't have a Blu Ray player. I didn't think it'd be worth it, but I may be starting to reconsider. But fast tempi and more enveloping sounds like two things I want in Beethoven. Plus, I managed to find it for under $30 shipped. Not bad, but I think it's time to take a break from purchases for a while!

I also have the '63 Karajan/Berlin 9th as an individual disc. I think this is another reason I decided to go with the '77, to avoid that overlap, plus recent praise for the '77 9th made me curious.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

MatthewWeflen said:


> You prefer Furtwangler? I would NOT have expected that!
> 
> :devil:


I do happen to prefer Furtwangler in most every piece of German repertoire he conducted - Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert...

I was trying to think of exceptions, and I came up with these:

Bach, St Matthew Passion - Mengelberg
Mozart, Die Zauberflote - Beecham and Karajan 1950
Wagner, Die Meistersinger - Knapperstbusch and Abendroth

So yes, very few!

How about you? What examples are there of works in Germanic repertoire that Karajan you conducted where you prefer someone else?


----------



## Heck148

annaw said:


> It feels that Strauss thought Karajan was a bit better than just ok .
> That's from HvK's Wikipedia page:


Composers most always like major conductors who perform their works...for me, HvK is ok with Strauss (usually), but others do it better.


----------



## Merl

MatthewWeflen said:


> You prefer Furtwangler? I would NOT have expected that!
> 
> :devil:


Sssh, don't tell everyone. He doesn't broadcast it. You can be so indiscreet sometimes, Matt.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Sssh, don't tell everyone. He doesn't broadcast it. You can be so indiscreet sometimes, Matt.


I'm friends with his granddaughter on Facebook. No marriage proposal yet.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm friends with his granddaughter on Facebook. No marriage proposal yet.


Which granddaughter. He was rather prolific with offspring


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I do happen to prefer Furtwangler in most every piece of German repertoire he conducted - Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert...
> 
> I was trying to think of exceptions, and I came up with these:
> 
> Bach, St Matthew Passion - Mengelberg
> Mozart, Die Zauberflote - Beecham and Karajan 1950
> Wagner, Die Meistersinger - Knapperstbusch and Abendroth
> 
> So yes, very few!
> 
> How about you? What examples are there of works in Germanic repertoire that Karajan you conducted where you prefer someone else?


For Brandenburg Concertos, I vastly prefer Trevor Pinnock's take. By a country mile. I think Karajan's "wall of sound" approach, which was the style at the time, makes Bach unpleasantly muddy. I basically never listen to HvK's rendition, and whenever I do, I react very poorly to it and switch to Pinnock.


----------



## Merl

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'm friends with his granddaughter on Facebook. No marriage proposal yet.


Tell her you like Karajan. That will impress her. :lol:


----------



## adriesba

Eclectic Al said:


> Be gentle with me; this is my first post - and this seems to be a thread that is on occasion a little tetchy.
> Anyway, does anyone disagree with the view that, at least sometimes, HvK could be quite good at conducting Strauss?


If you personally don't like Karajan's Richard Strauss recordings, that's fine. There are both subjective and objective aspects to art.


----------



## BachIsBest

Heck148 said:


> Composers most always like major conductors who perform their works...for me, HvK is ok with Strauss (usually), but others do it better.


I think Richard Strauss was past the "Oh my god a major conductor played one of my works" phase in 1939...

Going backstage to tell the conductor that he thought his performance of the work was the best he'd ever heard, especially for the man who was almost indisputable the most famous living composer of the time, does say something about his opinion of that conductor and I can only conclude it says something very positive.


----------



## Heck148

BachIsBest said:


> I think Richard Strauss was past the "Oh my god a major conductor played one of my works" phase in 1939...
> Going backstage to tell the conductor that he thought his performance of the work was the best he'd ever heard,...


??? How does that in any way contradict my statement:
"Composers most always like major conductors who perform their works.." ??

geezus....[smh]


----------



## NLAdriaan

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Of course they can all be great! All three of those conductors aimed for totally different things and got the results they wanted. They affect me differently depending on what I'm looking for - *burnished, luscious beauty *(Karajan), *unwavering discipline and commitment* (Klemperer), and *breathless spontaneity and imagination* (Furtwangler). All three have the potential to move me depending on what I feel like. I think that the mark of a healthy listener is being able to keep your options and preferences open. Much as I love Furt it'd be pretty boring if every conductor sounded like him...


The best of these three categories can be found in one man: Carlos Kleiber, be it he made only limited recordings. But scarcity is also a value.


----------



## JAS

Maybe Strauss found Karajan's interpretations special, and maybe he merely said so. Whatever his opinion might have been, mine is that they _are_ special, and my opinion of my own response always wins, as it should.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> The best of these three categories can be found in one man: Carlos Kleiber, be it he made only limited recordings. But scarcity is also a value.


Yes at his best. But I have a Schubert 3 from him that sounds like a bored run-through. Other recordings he made are not so special either. If Karajan had have made as few recordings as Kleiber he would have the same mythical status no doubt!


----------



## Eclectic Al

I made my remark about Strauss to see what the response would be in an area where there seemed almost unanimous acceptance of the excellence of many of his recordings. I find it uninteresting that some people generally like his recordings and some generally don't. What is really interesting, though, is that those who don't generally like him seem often to struggle to acknowledge that a particular recording is good and leave it at that. All credit to those who can, but what is striking is how an acknowledgement that a particular recording is good is so often grudging, and accompanied by a much longer set of remarks about how he is generally too polished or egotistical or whatever. It is tempting to think that this grudgingness is likely to be driven by a dislike of Karajan the person, rather than Karajan the conductor, in that if it was just about the conductor it might be easier to say: "I don't generally warm to his conducting, but his Zarathustra (or whatever) is excellent", whereas if it's about the person then it is more difficult to look at things recording by recording, in that his personality is a whole and cannot be separated so easily.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I asked about Strauss to see what the response would be in an area where there seemed almost unanimous acceptance of the excellence of many of his recordings. It is uninteresting that some people generally like his recordings and some generally don't. What is interesting is that those who generally don't like him often struggle to acknowledge that a particular recording is good and leave it at that. All credit to those who can, but it is striking how an acknowledgement that a particular recording is good is so often grudging, and accompanied by a much longer set of remarks about how he is generally too polished or egotistical or whatever. It is tempting to think that this grudgingness is driven by a dislike of Karajan the person, rather than Karajan the conductor, in that if it was just about the conductor it might be easier to say: "I don't generally warm to his conducting, but his Zarathustra (or whatever) is excellent", whereas if it's about the person then it is more difficult to look at things recording by recording, in that his personality is a whole and cannot be separated so easily.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Yes at his best. But I have a Schubert 3 from him that sounds like a bored run-through. Other recordings he made are not so special either. If Karajan had have made as few recordings as Kleiber he would have the same mythical status no doubt!


Well, the percentage of top notch recordings by Kleiber will forever be unsurpassed. Not difficult, because of his small overall production. But still, it remains a miraculous high hitrate.

Actually, we would have been perfectly fine with some conductors having produced less. Knowing what to release and what not to release is also a talent. It would be an interesting exercise to have conductors and soloists select their best work and to withdraw the others. Zimerman actually withdrew the Brahms solo recordings he made for DG. I wonder which recordings Karajan would choose!

I agree with you on Kleibers Schubert and also Mahler's DLVDE was not particularly his thing.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm surprised you all didn't like that Schubert, I think it's great. Definitely turned me onto Schubert's 3rd where others left no impression on me. Also I did not know Kleiber did Das Lied von der Erde, and faster than anyone else it seems—the Abschied clocks in under 27 minutes. I'll pass on this, I don't need yet another Christa Ludwig Das Lied, great as she is...


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, the percentage of top notch recordings by Kleiber will forever be unsurpassed. Not difficult, because of his small overall production. But still, it remains a miraculous high hitrate.
> 
> Actually, we would have been perfectly fine with some conductors having produced less. Knowing what to release and what not to release is also a talent. It would be an interesting exercise to have conductors and soloists select their best work and to withdraw the others. Zimerman actually withdrew the Brahms solo recordings he made for DG. I wonder which recordings Karajan would choose!
> 
> I agree with you on Kleibers Schubert and also Mahler's DLVDE was not particularly his thing.


Yes there was a live Beethoven Pastoral which some raved about but which didn't do a lot for me. I agree that Karajan could have produced less but then he was looked upon as somewhat of a cash cow by DG. For example, his Scheherazade was done purely for the DG accountants to make money to finance some of his other projects. They knew of course it would sell. It's actually not bad but not really his thing. Same with the Rossini overtures. He could conduct almost anything pretty well (although he was at a loss with Gershwin) so with his name on it it would sell.


----------



## DavidA

I note Decca are re-issuing Karajan's recordings complete in a 33 CD box!

Never know who buys these as most of us have got most of the CDs already.

The publicity blurb:

Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings, a limited edition 33 CD box set, features the legendary conductor's complete recordings for the label for the first time in one concise edition. These recordings best convey the experience of Herbert von Karajan live in the opera house and in concert. Ten of the finest opera recordings of all time, including the Decca-RCA recordings of Tosca and Carmen, are featured. Landmark recordings of Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra, Holst's The Planets, the Tchaikovsky ballet suites, plus a highlights disc of Adam's Giselle are also included. Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings presents these newly remastered recordings in their original sleeves and includes a new extensive essay by Karajan biographer Richard Osborne.

Herbert von Karajan (5 April 1908 - 16 July 1989) is one of the greatest conductors of all time. No conductor in the history of the gramophone has sold more records or covered, with distinction, a wider range of repertory than Karajan. He is the biggest selling classical artist in recorded music history and has sold over 200 million records. Karajan's legendary discography contains some of the most valued interpretations of the repertoire available.

Features Karajan's Vienna Opera recordings
Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings feature both the recordings he made during his tenure as director of the Vienna Opera (1957 - 1964), which best convey the experience of him in the opera house, and in the coda which followed in the 1970s.

Before recording for the label Herbert von Karajan had long been an admirer of Decca's engineering with the sonic advances they had made in stereo recording. Decca's introduction of the long-playing record in 1950 had ushered in what Karajan himself called "the second, the great period of the gramophone".

Includes ten of the finest opera recordings of all time
It would be an exaggeration to say that you needed to hear Karajan live in the opera house to fully understand his genius; yet it was in the theatre that he was most at home. Which is where the Decca legacy comes into its own. Herbert von Karajan made many great opera recordings, yet it was those he made in Vienna during his time as director of the State Opera - Aida (1959), Die Fledermaus (1960), Otello (1961), Tosca (1962), Carmen (1963) - which best convey the experience of him live in the opera house. Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings includes ten of the finest opera recordings of all time featuring Leontyne Price, Luciano Pavarotti, Mario del Monaco, Renata Tebaldi, Giuseppe di Stefano, and Carlo Bergonzi.

Luciano Pavarotti was the inspiration for the recordings of Puccini's La Bohème (1972) and Madama Butterfly (1974). The singer was as much revered by Karajan as Karajan revered him and noted, "Karajan was the most creative person, inventing the music at the moment, making the orchestra play very, very precisely but with soul."

Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings , a limited edition 33 CD box set featuring ten complete operas and landmark recordings, best conveys the experience of Karajan live in the opera house and in concert. "This is where the Decca legacy comes into its own … musically and in terms of sonic refinement and splendour," notes Richard Osborne in his extensive liner notes.

Herbert Von Karajan - The Complete Decca Recordings - Repertoire

CD1. R. Strauss Also Sprach Zarathustra

CD2 R. Strauss Don Juan; Till Eulenspiegel; Tod Und Verklarung

CD3 Beethoven Symphony No. 7; Brahms Symphony No. 1

CD4 Mozart Symphony No. 40; Haydn Symphony No. 104 "London"

CD5 Mozart Symphony No. 41 "Jupiter"; Haydn Symphony No. 103 "Drum Roll"

CD6 Music by the Strauss family

CD7 Holst The Planets; Grieg Peer Gynt Suites

CD8 Tchaikovsky Romeo & Juliet; Nutcracker Suite

CD9 Tchaikovsky Swan Lake Suite; Sleeping Beauty Suite

CD10 Adam Giselle (Highlights)

CD11 Brahms Symphony No. 3; 'Tragic Overture'; Dvorak Symphony No. 8

CD12 Christmas with Leontyne Price

CD13-14 Verdi Aida

CD15-16 J. Strauss II Die Fledermaus - Gala Performance

CD17-18 Verdi Otello

CD19-20 Puccini Tosca

CD21-23 Bizet Carmen (RCA)

CD24-26 Mussorgsky Boris Godunov

CD27-28 Puccini La Bohème

CD29-30 Puccini Madama Butterfly

CD31-33 Mozart Le Nozze Di Figaro


----------



## JAS

Eclectic Al said:


> What is interesting is that those who generally don't like him often struggle to acknowledge that a particular recording is good and leave it at that. All credit to those who can, but it is striking how an acknowledgement that a particular recording is good is so often grudging, and accompanied by a much longer set of remarks about how he is generally too polished or egotistical or whatever.


It may be difficult to hold the inherently contradictory position that Karajan was a terrible conductor who made (at least some) fine recordings . . . but I am sure that his critics are up to that challenge.


----------



## larold

26 pages of comments; still one of the most talked-about conductors in history. Everyone has an opinion.

When I first started following classical music I read Martin Bookspan's 1968 book "101 Masterpieces of Music and Their Composers" where he defined the top 101, talked about them, and discussed recordings. Bookspan hated Karajan and almost always criticized his recordings.

That was my first clue everyone had an opinion of him. It hasn't changed in the intervening 52 years ... almost 20 years after he died.


----------



## Flamme

This is neat


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

JAS said:


> It may be difficult to hold the inherently contradictory position that Karajan was a terrible conductor who made (at least some) fine recordings . . . but I am sure that his critics are up to that challenge.


I haven't seen a single poster here say HvK was "terrible." Most of us simply don't count him among our favorites and we were challenged in the OP to explain why.

What I see is people here either love Karajan or simply see him as among the better conductors of the 20th century. That's all. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> It may be difficult to hold the inherently contradictory position that Karajan was a terrible conductor who made (at least some) fine recordings . . . but I am sure that his critics are up to that challenge.


Nobody said that Karajan was a "terrible" conductor...it's simply that quite a number of listeners find other conductors more to their liking. 
For me, I can't name any work in which von Karajan's would be the best, most preferred version.

But he's not terrible. His recordings have good sound, are decently played, are "safe" choices for those who prefer that approach.


----------



## JAS

Heck148 said:


> Nobody said that Karajan was a "terrible" conductor...it's simply that quite a number of listeners find other conductors more to their liking.
> For me, I can't name any work in which von Karajan's would be the best, most preferred version.
> 
> But he's not terrible. His recordings have good sound, are decently played, are "safe" choices for those who prefer that approach.


And yet you make "safe" _seem_ like an easy substitute for "terrible" or at least "bad." A fair comment might be that the market should not be too heavily dominated by one conductor. Fortunately, that is not really the case.


----------



## DavidA

JAS said:


> And yet you make "safe" _seem_ like an easy substitute for "terrible" or at least "bad." A fair comment might be that the market should not be too heavily dominated by one conductor. Fortunately, that is not really the case.


I totally disagree that Karajan was a 'safe' conductor. His conducting of the operatic repertory was generally pretty unconventional and done in his own style. When he began making recordings in the 50s his style was regarded as pretty radical. Those who played under him thought it was.


----------



## Heck148

JAS said:


> And yet you make "safe" _seem_ like an easy substitute for "terrible" or at least "bad." A fair comment might be that the market should not be too heavily dominated by one conductor. Fortunately, that is not really the case.


Safe does not mean terrible...vK doesn't do it for me, I think he's pretty over-rated...others may love it, which is fine...to each his own...


----------

