# Explain the fascination with Karajan



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century? Why have his recordings dominated?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

This...title... oh no!!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

As someone who is methodically making his way through the DG decades boxes (current listening: Berg's Drei Orchesterstucke), I think the answer to "why his recordings dominate" is volume and relative quality. HVK/BPO may not be the single best interpretation of a given work, but it almost always exists for most material, and is almost always executed at a high level of quality with good sound. Showing up is half the battle, as it were.

Was he the best of the 20th century? Yeesh, who knows. It's a stylistic preference thing. He is my favorite personally for most things outside of Bach and Mozart. If you like big band, blow your hair back, beautiful sound, then he's going to be on your list. If you prefer HIP, sprightly, lean sound, he won't.

Ultimately, I think people are "fascinated" with Karajan both because he was fabulously successful and rich, handsome, well marketed in multiple media (not unlike Bernstein in these respects); and because he and his orchestra executed the music at a consistently high level. During his life, he was a celebrity because he was very good. Now, to some degree, people also assume he is very good because he was a celebrity.

Personally, I think I got on to Karajan because his recordings were the first search results on Amazon back when I was randomly buying an occasional CD (a Brahms cycle). So I got used to the sound, liked it, and sought out more. Search algorithms neatly capture all of these forces: volume, popularity, quality.

Movies like the following do a good job of capturing the reasons for the Karajan "cult:"


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

[Glances at thread title]..._pops bag of popcorn_


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

1. Incredibly good looking.

2. Beautiful blue eyes.

3. Image on almost every record cover.

4. Unitel videos with "Fascist" aesthetics for maximum self-aggrandizement.

5. Earliest adoptor of CD technology.

6. Understood sound engineering.

7. Sumptuous, irresistable BPO sounds.

8. Efficient method of conducting and attention to details (Schumann 4th rehearsal)

9. A mix of Toscanini's clarity and precision and Furtwangler's mystique and expressiveness.

10. Made every BPO musician his b**ch by making them rich.

11. Photographic memory and a huge repertoire.

12. Approved by Richard Strauss and Sibelius.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 3. Image on almost every record cover.


Just to be needlessly statistical, here are the numbers of times Karajan is pictured on the covers of his DG orchestral releases:

29/82 60s
20/82 70s
26/78 80s
---------------
Total:
75/242 30.9%


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

It's probably not too difficult to guess that I'm a bit of a Karajan fan. He was my main intro into more "serious" classical music and thus I started appreciating his style early on. I think I didn't even know what made his recordings so special until later when I became more acquainted with other alternative versions and was able to see the strengths and weaknesses of Karajan's conducting.

As MatthewWeflen said, not all his recordings are necessarily the top recommendations but they are definitely great in their artistic quality and execution. Karajan was a very talented and intelligent person, good at marketing but also musically and intellectually gifted. I disagree with the theory that he conducted everything the same way, although he certainly had a clear artistic vision which can be heard in the so-called Karajan sound. His focus on legato and his masterful ability to maintain constant flow was a great fit for many composers like Strauss and Bruckner but it wasn't so effective with some others. He managed to do some very marvellous recordings and recorded a very wide range of repertoire which contributed to his great success. Okay, I admit, his good looks were certainly a contributing factor as well.

What is often somewhat neglected is the fact that he was also a great opera conductor! He made many very wonderful recordings in Italian repertoire (and quite a few with Callas!) but also of German operas. His _Die Walküre_ and _Der Rosenkavalier_ are two examples. In fact, Strauss himself complimented Karajan's conducting of _Eletkra_ and was very impressed how he had managed to memorise such a difficult score. If I recall correctly, he was also his own stage director and based on the videos I've seen, they were mad beautifully staged!

Karajan had such a distinctive style and conducting "philosophy" that I can see why not all are as fond of him as I am. Just to make it clear, I don't like those Karajan's recordings which I like just because they were Karajan's, I like them because I think they were, in my opinion, artistically intelligent and beautifully executed.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Just to be needlessly statistical, here are the numbers of times Karajan is pictured on the covers of his DG orchestral releases:
> 
> 29/82 60s
> 20/82 70s
> ...


Statistics are statistics, I like them. (Re-releases have a much higher percentage I believe)

I was not being serious, but he did mystify the "Maestro" by his pensive good-looking image.

I do have the DG complete big box with OG covers...(it's mostly a decorative thing to lure friends)


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Statistics are statistics, I like them. (Re-releases have a much higher percentage I believe)
> 
> I was not being serious, but he did mystify the "Maestro" by his pensive good-looking image.
> 
> I do have the DG complete big box with OG covers...(it's mostly a decorative thing to lure friends)


Absolutely, he and Bernstein became sort of the image of conductors in most people's minds in the 20th century. If Looney Tunes had put their various classical music cartoons out a few decades later, it wouldn't be "Leopold!" It would be either "Lenny!" or "Karajan!"

I don't know about re-releases. The DG Galleria releases all seem to feature artwork and photography, as do most of their "2CD" jewel cases. On the other hand, they clearly are marketing his image on their box sets, such as the decade boxes, the Symphony Edition, etc.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Absolutely, he and Bernstein became sort of the image of conductors in most people's minds in the 20th century. If Looney Tunes had put their various classical music cartoons out a few decades later, it wouldn't be "Leopold!" It would be either "Lenny!" or "Karajan!"


Lenny is in many ways the opposite of Karajan. He is out-going and unassuming (despite his tremendous intellect) and always spontaneous in his conducting. He was not afraid of going overboard or making an "ugly" sound (his terrifying VPO Mahler 6 for example).

Karajan made some truly spectacular recordings. He is not everyone's cup of tea but I find him to be underrated among CM fans. His Richard Strauss and some opera recordings are unparalleled in terms of sounds. (his 78 Salome and 56 Rosenkavalier that Ozawa described as the most beautiful orchestral play)


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i actually got a chance to see him live once just before he died.
He played one of Bruckner's late symphonies The 7th i think it was..
It took him so long to get to the podium because of his terrible back pain.
He didn't move much while conducting,just a small movement was all he needed. But wow, what a sound!
i never heard anything like it since.
He got a standing ovation.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

i think his Ring recording is genius.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Itullian said:


> i actually got a chance to see him live once just before he died.
> He played one of Bruckner's late symphonies The 7th i think it was..
> It took him so long to get to the podium because of his terrible back pain.
> He didn't move much while conducting,just a small movement was all he needed. But wow, what a sound!
> ...


People who have heard him live all say that recordings don't capture the sheer beauty of his sound.

His studio ring lacks the visceral impact of Solti, they are a bit too rigid for my taste. After hearing Keilberth 55 and Furtwangler 50 and Krauss 53 I just can't go back.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> 9. A mix of Toscanini's clarity and precision and Furtwangler's mystique and expressiveness.


This, I think, is a big plus for Karajan. He gave us old-fashioned, big-boned Germanic interpretations of the core repertoire but combined it with the immaculate orchestral execution and top-notch quality of playing that marked the "American" conducting school. The difference is that he was more concerned with overall beauty of sound rather than the obsessive down-to-the-last detail micromanagement of Szell, Reiner, and Toscanini. It's that influence that often leads me to criticize him, for being too metronomic and focusing so much on how his orchestra sounded to the extent that interpretation was sometimes second-fiddle - but certainly not always and several of his recordings are certainly interpretive triumphs by any measure. That beautiful sound made him one of the finest choral and opera accompanists of his age, and in his best recordings he was able to maintain a graceful, singing line throughout the entire performance that led to an overwhelming impact (i.e. his amazing Bruckner).



> 12. Approved by Richard Strauss and Sibelius.


Obviously neither of them lived to see him take over the BPO and manicure it to it that very distinctive sound that we now know him for. I'm sure their endorsements were sincere, but we have to take them with a grain of salt when discussing his stereo recordings of those composers with a sound they would not have recognized.

Hypothetical time: If all we had of Karajan were his pre-BPO recordings (he died early or pursued other ventures) would he still be considered a great conductor?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Itullian said:


> i actually got a chance to see him live once just before he died.
> He played one of Bruckner's late symphonies The 7th i think it was..
> It took him so long to get to the podium because of his terrible back pain.
> He didn't move much while conducting,just a small movement was all he needed. But wow, what a sound!
> ...


Nooo way! Hearing Karajan conduct Bruckner must have really been an amazing experience!



Itullian said:


> i think his Ring recording is genius.


His _Die Walküre_ and (or?) _Götterdämmerung_ were the first full Wagner recordings I heard. His _Ring_ got me truly hooked.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This, I think, is a big plus for Karajan. He gave us old-fashioned, big-boned Germanic interpretations of the core repertoire but combined it with the immaculate orchestral execution and top-notch quality of playing that marked the "American" conducting school. The difference is that he was more concerned with overall beauty of sound rather than the obsessive down-to-the-last detail micromanagement of Szell, Reiner, and Toscanini. It's that influence that often leads me to criticize him, for being too metronomic and focusing so much on how his orchestra sounded to the extent that interpretation was sometimes second-fiddle - but certainly not always and several of his recordings are certainly interpretive triumphs by any measure. That beautiful sound made him one of the finest choral and opera accompanists of his age, and in his best recordings he was able to maintain a graceful, singing line throughout the entire performance that led to an overwhelming impact (i.e. his amazing Bruckner).


I agree with this assessment. In Karajan we get the best of both worlds (with stipulations), he hated the "bar lines" that are too apparent in some of the great "American" (both Reiner and Szell are Hungarians) maestros. There is a greater sense of pulse rather than beats in his recordings. His style is soft-edged, flowing, and a thick blending orchestral texture without sacrificing the shapes and forms of the music. But I don't think he goes deeper than that, which is fine because he is clearly in a league of his own.



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Hypothetical time: If all we had of Karajan were his pre-BPO recordings (he died early or pursued other ventures) would he still be considered a great conductor?


In that case, I think he will be considered as someone similar to Cantelli. BPO was the realization of his artistic vision so it matters. If Celibidache took the helm of BPO then we will perhaps view Celibidache very differently today (but he still managed to created something special with MP).


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Hypothetical time: If all we had of Karajan were his pre-BPO recordings (he died early or pursued other ventures) would he still be considered a great conductor?


I imagine he would have the following of a Wand or Bohm in this case. Obviously DG and Karajan had a highly mutually beneficial arrangement.

He would probably also be held in higher esteem by critics - there is little they hate more than success.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I imagine he would have the following of a Wand or Bohm in this case. Obviously DG and Karajan had a highly mutually beneficial arrangement.


Wand is clearly underrated because his interpretations of the Austro-German canon are impeccable and supreme, free of artificial coloring and flavors. When I listen with a score, this is apparent.



MatthewWeflen said:


> He would probably also be held in higher esteem by critics - there is little they hate more than success.


Karajan's success is a problem. He started this trend of the "Maestro myth" and flooded the market with his recordings. They homogenized classical music taste for many people. It's like biodiversity. A species that's too dominant is bad news for the entire ecosystem.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

RogerWaters said:


> Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century?


He wasn't. 


> Why have his recordings dominated?


Aggressive marketing??


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century? Why have his recordings dominated?


I count at least 14 that were better:

Furtwängler
De Sabata
Nikisch
Toscanini
Stokowski 
Beecham
Barbirolli
Mengelberg
Klemperer
Walter
Horenstein
Carlos Kleiber
Abendroth
Weingartner

But unlike most all of these, Karajan lived well into the stereo age, and like Solti, he was obsessed with recording.

That's not to say he was not among the greatest conductors. He most certainly was. His greatest legacy is not so much that he stood out as an interpreter - he would be largely forgotten had his career run at about the same time as Furtwängler/Toscanini - but that he was the LAST of the great line of German conductors AND he has a vast recording legacy in excellent sound.

He was great in repertoire that emphasized beauty of sound - I just listened to his Peer Gynt this morning. He was among the handful of greatest Bruckner, Strauss, and Sibelius conductors, music that thrives on Late Romantic sensuousness and mystery. He was slightly less successful in music that depends more on Classical harmonic narrative. Here his penchant for beautification and lack of clarity got in the way, although he still continued the basic outline of the Germanic tradition best represented by Furtwängler/Klemperer and was thus more idiomatic than Toscanini/Reiner/Solti.

In short, Karajan filled a hugely important role in representing the great German conducting tradition on stereo recordings.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> He was great in repertoire that emphasized beauty of sound - I just listened to his Peer Gynt this morning. He was among the handful of greatest Bruckner, Strauss, and Sibelius conductors, music that thrives on Late Romantic sensuousness and mystery. He was slightly less successful in music that depends more on Classical harmonic narrative. Here his penchant for beautification and lack of clarity got in the way, although he still continued the basic outline of the Germanic tradition best represented by Furtwängler/Klemperer and was thus more idiomatic than Toscanini/Reiner/Solti.
> 
> In short, Karajan filled a hugely important role in representing the great German conducting tradition on stereo recordings.


Conducting with eyes closed is similar to Furtwangler's practice of not giving clear beats, the goal is to create elastic lines.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Conducting with eyes closed is similar to Furtwangler's practice of not giving clear beats, the goal is to create elastic lines.


True, but Furtwängler was not mushy. Like Klemperer he could create strong, heavy accents that accentuated the harmonic narrative. With Karajan it was all more ethereal - music in the dark instead of with the lights on - which worked better in certain repertoire than others.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Spray some *water* over here!"
"*Roger* that!"


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

annaw said:


> Nooo way! Hearing Karajan conduct Bruckner must have really been an amazing experience .


Heard him do Bruckner 9 with BPO, many years ago...it was good, not great, certainly not cosmic. 
Now, Solti/CSO, Bruckner 7 @ Carnegie Hall that was phenomenal.....unforgettable....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I count at least 14 that were better:
> 
> Furtwängler
> De Sabata
> ...


Reiner, Monteux, Solti and Bernstein must be added to the list. Karajan's efforts are always well-recorded, they are safe....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Reiner, Monteux, Solti and Bernstein must be added to the list. Karajan's efforts are always well-recorded, they are safe....


The first three lacked Karajan's personality. Bernstein was more his equal - more overtly impassioned - but more hit or miss interpretively.

Safe may not be the right word. His Bruckner and Strauss were extremely powerful. But everything was on a smooth arc and controlled, which worked well in this repertoire. His Beethoven could have opened up more.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Heard him do Bruckner 9 with BPO, many years ago...it was good, not great, certainly not cosmic.
> Now, Solti/CSO, Bruckner 7 @ Carnegie Hall that was phenomenal.....unforgettable....


Solti's Bruckner is an acquired taste. His penchant for thrills and excitements can be counterproductive for Bruckner (at least on the discs), which in most people's hearts, is deeply spiritual music.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The first three lacked Karajan's personality. Bernstein was more his equal - more overtly impassioned - but more hit or miss interpretively.
> 
> Safe may not be the right word. His Bruckner and Strauss were extremely powerful. But everything was on a smooth arc and controlled, which worked well in this repertoire. His Beethoven could have opened up more.


There are actually a lot of overlaps between Karajan and Solti's strength. Both of them are very good at Strauss and Wagner and opera conducting in general. They are also good at selling "fun" orchestral pieces.

But Solti does not have quite the range and lasting appeal as HvK, Heck might disagree, but that's more or less the general sentiment.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There are actually a lot of overlaps between Karajan and Solti's strength. Both of them are very good at Strauss and Wagner. They are also good at selling "fun" orchestral pieces.


Solti lived for the big moments, the climaxes. But there is so much more to the music than just that.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> The first three lacked Karajan's personality.


Not sure what that means, but their performances are far more exciting, dynamic, flexible. Reiner and Monteux never miss, musically.



> Bernstein was more his equal - more overtly impassioned - but more hit or miss interpretively.


Bernstein, Solti and Karajan were the big Honchos of their generation, the last of the superstar conductors....Bernstein and Solti didn't always click on everything, but they got it right so many times, for me they have lots of winners, performances right at or near the top. I can't say that for vK.


> Safe may not be the right word. His Bruckner and Strauss were extremely powerful. But everything was on a smooth arc and controlled, which worked well in this repertoire.


You're right about the smooth control...i don't care for his sound, I like more vitality, more accent, more "panache", bravura...Karajan was for me, too restrained, suppressed (eyes closed). I know he always wanted a beautiful sound, but it doesn't really work for me. I've tried, many times....


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Solti lived for the big moments, the climaxes. But there is so much more to the music than just that.


Solti didn't make any boring recording, that's for sure. He also has a distinct sound, so for me, he belongs to the greats. But what you've said also rings true, he turns everything into this "Solti" sound, bombastic and driven.

For clarity, transparency of the orchestra texture, and sheer musicality, I would much prefer Haitink.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I like *more vitality, more accent, more "panache", bravura*...Karajan was for me, too restrained, suppressed (eyes closed). I know he always wanted a beautiful sound, but it doesn't really work for me. I've tried, many times....


Yes, that's an American aesthetic. A lot of us feel it misfires on the tonal, spiritual depth of German repertoire. Which is my entire point about Karajan: he represented the last of this tradition.

It's funny, my singing often gets criticized for being too covered. There's this one guy who hates my voice. He's totally a New York guy, grew up on Sinatra. "Why don't you ever just sing out and let loose?" he asks me. It's just a different aesthetic. I go for the depth, the soul, in some cases the melancholy. That's German Romanticism to me.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But Solti does not have quite the range and lasting appeal as HvK, Heck might disagree, but that's more or less the general sentiment.


We'll see, reputations go up and down in the musical world all the time....
Bernstein, Solti and Karajan were the superstars of their generation, we won't see such again. I love Bernstein and Solti....2 of my favorites....
Critic Bernie Jacobson could be pretty caustic,vitriolic even...he referred to Karajan as "an over-rated dullard"...!! That may be a little strong....
lol!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Solti didn't make any boring recording, that's for sure.


Definitely... a Drama King!! lol!!



> For clarity, transparency of the orchestra texture, and sheer musicality, I would much prefer Haitink.


Fine conductor, but a little too "buttoned down"for me..
I like the "drivers" - the guys who will really push the orchestra -


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Solti's Bruckner is an acquired taste. His penchant for thrills and excitements can be counterproductive for Bruckner (at least on the discs), which in most people's hearts, is deeply spiritual music.


To hear it live is really thrilling!!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Definitely... a Drama King!! lol!!
> 
> Fine conductor, but a little too "buttoned down"for me..
> I like the "drivers" - the guys who will really push the orchestra -


You like Ferrari, I am more of a Maybach guy, I wouldn't mind vintage Porsche also.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You like Ferrari, I am more of a Maybach guy, I wouldn't mind vintage Porsche also.


 .........


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You like Ferrari, I am more of a Maybach guy, I wouldn't mind vintage Porsche also.










"Ja, mich auch."


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Ultimately, I think people are "fascinated" with Karajan both because he was fabulously successful and rich, *handsome*, well marketed in multiple media


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There’s a whole load of rubbish written about Karajan. If you don’t like music well played and well interpreted then stay away. For a man to produce a set of recordings of such excellence over a lifetime was an astounding achievement. He had his misfires but then every conductor death. In all his achievement was enormous and only to be scoffed at by the envious and unsuccessful. People might have reservations about the man himself but not about his music making


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


>


You can post all the meme pictures you like. The simple fact is, by most measures of attractiveness, Karajan was an attractive man, at least within the realm of orchestral musicians. No one is claiming it has anything to do with the music. But if you're asking why he was a celebrity among the great unwashed, attractiveness has to come into play.

There is just a difference between this:








And this:








I chose the most flattering picture of Furty I could find, too.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MatthewWeflen said:


> You can post all the meme pictures you like. The simple fact is, by most measures of attractiveness, Karajan was an attractive man, at least within the realm of orchestral musicians. No one is claiming it has anything to do with the music. But if you're asking why he was a celebrity among the great unwashed, attractiveness has to come into play.
> 
> There is just a difference between this:
> View attachment 140391
> ...


It's interesting when you listen to the players who actually played under Karajan, it was the music they went for. It certainly wasn't the man. That was for the public


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> There is just a difference between this:
> View attachment 140391
> 
> 
> ...


Ouch. But Furtwangler is a "giant" among great conductors. I have visual proofs

























Furtwangler "dwarfs" Karajan confirmed.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> There's a whole load of rubbish written about Karajan. If you don't like music well played and well interpreted then stay away. For a man to produce a set of recordings of such excellence over a lifetime was an astounding achievement. He had his misfires but then every conductor death. In all his achievement was enormous and only to be scoffed at by the envious and unsuccessful. People might have reservations about the man himself but not about his music making


There's a whole load of rubbish written about Ormandy. If you don't like music well played and well interpreted then stay away. For a man to produce a set of recordings of such excellence over a lifetime was an astounding achievement. He had his misfires but then every conductor death. In all his achievement was enormous and only to be scoffed at by the envious and unsuccessful. People might have reservations about the man himself but not about his music making.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

Well...I'm not 'fascinated' with him.

In fact, I can't think of any conductor I'm fascinated with. I'm more of a...you know...music fan.


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

Whether one's a Karajan fan or not, it must be credited that he was able to extract a beautiful sound from any orchestra. Fx. String sections have a special quality under his baton and wind's always in tune.

Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with being a clever business man too, and he certainly was one. Unfortunately, many musicians -and artists in general- disregard this important aspect of their careers. I don't think any of us can sit and wait for someone to knock at the door with a paycheck, just because we spend a lot of hours a day getting better at what we're good at. There's always a boring side to any job, no matter how much (whether?) you enjoy what you do for a living.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Ouch. But Furtwangler is a "giant" among great conductors. I have visual proofs
> 
> View attachment 140394


By the same token Klemperer's even bigger:lol:

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

vincula said:


> By the same token Klemperer's even bigger:lol:
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


Otto Klemperer was truly the "greatest" conductor of all time.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> You can post all the meme pictures you like. The simple fact is, by most measures of attractiveness, Karajan was an attractive man, at least within the realm of orchestral musicians. No one is claiming it has anything to do with the music. But if you're asking why he was a celebrity among the great unwashed, attractiveness has to come into play.
> 
> There is just a difference between this:
> View attachment 140391
> ...


Uh, just because he has more hair? I'm just not following. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, however.

And to be fair, Furt looked a lot better in his younger years.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> There's a whole load of rubbish written about Ormandy. If you don't like music well played and well interpreted then stay away. For a man to produce a set of recordings of such excellence over a lifetime was an astounding achievement. He had his misfires but then every conductor death. In all his achievement was enormous and only to be scoffed at by the envious and unsuccessful. People might have reservations about the man himself but not about his music making.


Why on earth have you copied my post? I just can't see the point in this?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Well...I'm not 'fascinated' with him.
> 
> In fact, I can't think of any conductor I'm fascinated with. I'm more of a...you know...music fan.


Quite right. I do though read biographies of musicians as I'm interested in people.as a result I have biographies of such conductors as Karajan, Beecham, Furtwangler, Solti, et al. Just good to know what makes these guys tick


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vincula said:


> Whether one's a Karajan fan or not, it must be credited that he was able to extract a beautiful sound from any orchestra. Fx. String sections have a special quality under his baton and wind's always in tune.
> 
> Beyond that, there's nothing wrong with being a clever business man too, and he certainly was one. Unfortunately, many musicians -and artists in general- disregard this important aspect of their careers. I don't think any of us can sit and wait for someone to knock at the door with a paycheck, just because we spend a lot of hours a day getting better at what we're good at. There's always a boring side to any job, no matter how much (whether?) you enjoy what you do for a living.
> 
> ...


More than a businessman. He had a love of power certainly, a great entrepreneur. Incredible ability in that way to build an empire.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth have you copied my post? I just can't see the point in this?


The point is that your statement could apply equally well to Ormandy, with whom no one fascinates. What you have said does not explain why Karajan is "fascinating". I will go with the pair of aquamarine eyes of his.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Uh, just because he has more hair? I'm just not following. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, however.
> 
> And to be fair, Furt looked a lot better in his younger years.


You're the one who made a thing about it with the girl-making-face meme picture. The OP asked why people are fascinated. I have read many mentions of Karajan's physical attractiveness, which leads me to believe that it's part of the "fascination." Generally speaking, humans find other humans who are attractive more "fascinating" than people who are ugly. John F. Kennedy is another example.

To summarize:
1. Huge recorded repertoire, mostly very well executed
2. rich and successful
3. good-looking
4. aggressively marketed based on the above


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The point is that your statement could apply equally well to Ormandy, with whom no one fascinates. What you have said does not explain why Karajan is "fascinating". I will go with the pair of aquamarine eyes of his.


I never find usually Ormandy'S recordings as good as Karajan's. He was an excellent accompanist however


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> You're the one who made a thing about it with the girl-making-face meme picture. The OP asked why people are fascinated. I have read many mentions of Karajan's physical attractiveness, which leads me to believe that it's part of the "fascination." Generally speaking, humans find other humans who are attractive more "fascinating" than people who are ugly. John F. Kennedy is another example.
> 
> To summarize:
> 1. Huge recorded repertoire, mostly very well executed
> ...


I buy this theory.

The little girl's stare was for piercing through your shallowness for suggesting that people like Karajan for his success and for his good look.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I never find usually Ormandy'S recordings as good as Karajan's. He was an excellent accompanist however


But don't you find it fascinating that no one cares about him anymore and it's like he did not exist.

He had a warm, distinct sound, premiered many 20th century works, had a huge discography, and was very successful as well.

I think it's the baldness.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But don't you find it fascinating that no one cares about him anymore and it's like he did not exist.
> 
> He had a warm, distinct sound, premiered many 20th century works, had a huge discography, and was very successful as well.
> 
> I think it's the baldness.


It was the difference between a good conductor and a great conductor.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Quite right.


Thanks



DavidA said:


> I do though read biographies of musicians as I'm interested in people.


I've read two books. One bio of Beethoven, one 'story' about DSCH. I was interested in them.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

OMG. I think we have a thread on Karajan every month, and it's always a copy paste. Fanboys vs making funboys (of which I would be one). It's in a way interesting that Karajan/Wagner/Furtwangler to this day still manage to raise controversies whenever they are discussed. 

The thing these three have in common is a questionable connection with a totalitarian political system. There were many other dictators at the helm or behind the composing table, but this is the thing these three have in common. Funny, there were others as well (Richard Strauss, Karl Bohm), but somehow they aren't a subject here.

I think it is the cult following that sets these three Germanic musicians apart. And perhaps the controversy is an attractive side-effect? If there would be an ignore button for subjects of threads (not only for individual members), it might help in making TC a better place.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Thanks
> 
> I've read two books. One bio of Beethoven, one 'story' about DSCH. I was interested in them.


I'm reading Stafford's biography of Beethoven at the moment. Can be recommended. Actually Harold Schoenberg's book on the virtuosi is entertaining


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> OMG. I think we have a thread on Karajan every month, and it's always a copy paste. Fanboys vs making funboys (of which I would be one). It's in a way interesting that Karajan/Wagner/Furtwangler to this day still manage to raise controversies whenever they are discussed.
> 
> The thing these three have in common is a questionable connection with a totalitarian political system. There were many other dictators at the helm or behind the composing table, but this is the thing these three have in common. Funny, there were others as well (Richard Strauss, Karl Bohm), but somehow they aren't a subject here.
> 
> I think it is the cult following that sets these three Germanic musicians apart. And perhaps the controversy is an attractive side-effect? If there would be an ignore button for subjects of threads (not only for individual members), it might help in making TC a better place.


No one is stopping you ignoring them dear friend. Might help make TC a better place if you do


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> You're the one who made a thing about it with the girl-making-face meme picture. The OP asked why people are fascinated. I have read many mentions of Karajan's physical attractiveness, which leads me to believe that it's part of the "fascination." Generally speaking, humans find other humans who are attractive more "fascinating" than people who are ugly. John F. Kennedy is another example.
> 
> To summarize:
> 1. Huge recorded repertoire, mostly very well executed
> ...


JFK's attractiveness is widely acknowledged. I have never heard the same said regarding Karajan. I was taking issue with your stating it as some sort of consensus opinion. If it is, then that's news to me. Neither here nor there. I always thought of him as sort of elf looking.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> JFK's attractiveness is widely acknowledged. I have never heard the same said regarding Karajan. I was taking issue with your stating it as some sort of consensus opinion. If it is, then that's news to me. Neither here nor there. I always thought of him as sort of elf looking.


Some people find power and/or prestige to be attractive on their own. (That explains the wives of many a wealthy man.)


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I'm reading Stafford's biography of Beethoven


Swafford's ?


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

JAS said:


> Some people find power and/or prestige to be attractive on their own. (That explains the wives of many a wealthy man.)


I pity them so. Thank God I'm not rich then. I think one's more than enough :lol:

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

JAS said:


> Some people find power and/or prestige to be attractive on their own. (That explains the wives of many a wealthy man.)


I've always found Karajan's cover images off putting. He comes across as self-absorbed and superficial.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

vincula said:


> Whether one's a Karajan fan or not, *it must be credited *that he was able to extract a beautiful sound from any orchestra.


Well, not 'must'. If one isn't a fan, it might be precisely because one doesn't think he extracted a 'beautiful sound' from any orchestra.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> OMG. I think we have a thread on Karajan every month, and it's always a copy paste. Fanboys vs making funboys (of which I would be one). It's in a way interesting that Karajan/Wagner/Furtwangler to this day still manage to raise controversies whenever they are discussed.
> 
> The thing these three have in common is a questionable connection with a totalitarian political system. There were many other dictators at the helm or behind the composing table, but this is the thing these three have in common. Funny, there were others as well (Richard Strauss, Karl Bohm), but somehow they aren't a subject here.
> 
> I think it is the cult following that sets these three Germanic musicians apart. And perhaps the controversy is an attractive side-effect? If there would be an ignore button for subjects of threads (not only for individual members), it might help in making TC a better place.


I really don't think people like Furtwängler's recordings because they are Furtwängler's, Karajan's because they are Karajan's and I have even no idea how one applies this thinking when talking about composers. Does someone listen to Wagner just because it's Wagner? I wouldn't sit through an over 4 hours long opera repeatedly, if I didn't like it very sincerely. I don't see anyone claiming them to be some saints, far from that, but their artistic innovativeness and genius were in my opinion spectacular. Admiring this is not cult following, as far as I know.

Their associations with either Nazis or anti-semitism are _not_ the reason why I like them. I try to base my arguments on logic and objective facts not blind fanaticism. If it wasn't so, my arguments would probably look very different.


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> Well, not 'must'. If one isn't a fan, it might be precisely because one doesn't think he extracted a 'beautiful sound' from any orchestra.


I'm not a Karajan fan, even though I do enjoy a great deal of his recordings, but I can hear that. His choices within fx. articulation, phrasing, tempi, dynamics are a different kettle of fish. However, I still believe he was able to extract a beautiful sound from any orchestra. Even 'too beautiful' at times.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

I've got a fair few CDs, although many fewer (I am sure) than a lot of people on this thread.
If I look at them there are quite a number of Karajan CDs, but I have never been fascinated with him in any way at all, nor am I fascinated by any other conductor.

Why are there plenty of HvK CDs on my shelves then:
(1) they were available and generally favourably reviewed at the time
(2) I learned that they rarely disappointed me, so I was willing to buy more.

When I think about this am I disappointed in some way that I have them instead of other performances?
No. Why would I be? There may be better performances (to me) and I may encounter them and acquire them, but I have rarely been disappointed by what he served up.

I haven't listened (clearly) to all alternatives, but some of the HvK CDs I have seem to me genuinely brilliant: Honegger 2 and especially 3, a fair bit of R Strauss, Bruckner and Sibelius, Prokofiev 5. His 2nd Viennese school collection was excellent in bringing that music to many who wouldn't otherwise try it (doubtless through his brand power). His Brahms and Beethoven includes performances which are up there in the territory where it's about splitting hairs or a strong preference for a different style. Some lighter stuff like Grieg. I haven't encountered his attempts at stuff earlier than Beethoven so I can't comment, although I know many are not fans.

One odd thing is that people go on about "the Karajan sound", but the thing that generally puts me off about a performance is if I sense that the conductor is trying to make it about them by some interpretive oddity or mannerism. I don't generally get that sense with Karajan.

So put it together, and for me the position is:
- No fascination
- Doesn't irritate
- A good number of genuinely brilliant records, and many, many excellent ones.

Isn't that enough?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Swafford's ?


Sorry the computer misprinted. I meant Swafford.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've always found Karajan's cover images off putting. He comes across as self-absorbed and superficial.


I can assure you that he might have been self-absorbed but he was anything but superficial. Furtwangler was entirely self-absorbed. Look at the paranoia he had at rival conductors. Actually most conductors are self-absorbed - it goes with the territory. And composers - look at Beethoven! Wagner!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I think these threads can be easily summarized thusly:

If you don't like Karajan, it's because you are jealous of his success.

If you don't like Furtwangler, it's because you lack depth.

If you don't like Toscanini, it's because you invent things that are not in the score.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think these threads can be easily summarized thusly:
> 
> If you don't like Karajan, it's because you are jealous of his success.
> 
> ...


I think that's a reasonably fair summary of a lot of the posts.

The other point people sometimes raise, which makes no sense to me at all, is that those who like Furtwangler or Karajan somehow have an interest in the Nazi party. I suspect that point actually works the other way round: ie those who have an interest in the Nazi party (in the sense that they think any conductor who has any remote taint from it, however arguably tenuous, should not be listened to) will rule out both F and HvK. I don't buy the argument of a group of closet Nazis listening to either F or HvK because that makes them feel closer to their political home. That just seems fanciful.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think these threads can be easily summarized thusly:
> 
> If you don't like Karajan, it's because you are jealous of his success.
> 
> ...


Complete rubbish. I do think the members of TC are not quite so simpleminded. You are the one who polarises things. You are doing the same now


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Complete rubbish. I do think the members of TC are not quite so simpleminded. You are the one who polarises things. You are doing the same now


Settle down. What I wrote was tongue in cheek, though of course all humor has an element of truth to it. Nothing wrong with a little self parody for us all.


----------



## vincula (Jun 23, 2020)

Damned, I was about to make some popcorn :lol::lol:

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Settle down. What I wrote was tongue in cheek, though of course all humor has an element of truth to it. Nothing wrong with a little self parody for us all.


I'm quite settled down thanks. Self parody yourself all you like, friend! :lol:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think these threads can be easily summarized thusly:
> 
> If you don't like Karajan, it's because you are jealous of his success.
> 
> ...


LOL!! Good one, that is funny!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Complete rubbish. I do think the members of TC are not quite so simpleminded. You are the one who polarises things. You are doing the same now


Relax. I think that was meant in jest....


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> JFK's attractiveness is widely acknowledged. I have never heard the same said regarding Karajan. I was taking issue with your stating it as some sort of consensus opinion. If it is, then that's news to me. Neither here nor there. I always thought of him as sort of elf looking.


https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/12/...the-truth-is-nowhere-film-work-important.html

"Herbert von Karajan, still icily handsome at 66 years of age, has long been one of the world's most honored conductors. Yet his reputation in America lags behind his reputation in Europe."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture...the-conductor-who-lived-in-the-fast-lane.html

"Karajan seemed cut from the same cloth: suave, handsome and glossy."

http://www.edgreenmusic.org/Ambition.html

"Being very handsome, coming from a family with social rank, and having artistic talent, he felt certain things were coming to him. "I was born to command," he told Vaughan."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-05-07-8904100747-story.html

"A short, trim, still-handsome man at 78, Karajan walked with obvious difficulty, but his rosy complexion seemed to belie the persistent rumors of failing health. He was dressed entirely in black, a fashionable ensemble that accentuated his silver-gray hair. "

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/terry-teachout/the-trouble-with-karajan/

"A short but handsome man with a gravelly voice, an aquiline profile, and a strikingly elegant manner of conducting, Karajan was the very model of the musical matinée idol."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've always found Karajan's cover images off putting. He comes across as self-absorbed and superficial.


I suspect that he was going for deeply contemplative in a profound and artistic way, but it may be that the force of his personality, and your perception of it, overwhelms that intent, at least for you.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I like Karajan because he made a higher-than-average number of very good to superb recordings. Not everything, of course, but at his best he had an ear for nuance and subtlety of orchestral color that very few of his colleagues could match, before or since. He never had all of the answers, but no one conductor does or can.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Knorf said:


> I like Karajan because he made a higher-than-average number of very good to superb recordings. Not everything, of course, but at his best he had an ear for nuance and subtlety of orchestral color that very few of his colleagues could match, before or since. He never had all of the answers, but no one conductor does or can.


Stop being so reasonable, Knorf. Where's the vitriol? The fun?!


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I like Karajan because he made a higher-than-average number of very good to superb recordings. Not everything, of course, but at his best he had an ear for nuance and subtlety of orchestral color that very few of his colleagues could match, before or since. He never had all of the answers, but no one conductor does or can.


'Like' is fine. It's 'fascination' that the OP wonders about.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Stop being so reasonable, Knorf. Where's the vitriol? The fun?!


Didn't you once say listening to Klemperer is worse than getting hit by a bus?


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century? Why have his recordings dominated?_

Who says he was the best?

During his time he may have been the best in a long line of German conductors to record standard repertoire after World War II. He had a much broader recorded repertoire than German contemporaries such as Karl Bohm, Klemperer and Rudolf Kempe.

He built the Berlin Philharmonic -- already one of the greatest orchestras -- into a sound machine that competed with the Philadelphia and Vienna orchestras. Karajan also concentrated on sound in his recordings and was among the first conductors to dabble with Sony on laser disks and other new technologies.

He was considered the biggest name among postwar jet set conductors in Europe and spent a lot of time with the great orchestras in Berlin and Vienna, the opera orchestras in Italy, Berlin and Vienna and the best-known European festivals, some of which he managed.

His recordings ... he made his reputation in the LP era (he died 1990) when he was top dog at one of the world's greatest labels, he made more recordings than most conductors, DG sound was typically as good or better than most labels in the LP era, and there was almost never a skip or pop on a DG record. All this led to sales records.

By the time the CD era arrived he was already established as the best-selling living conductor of classical music.

Whether he was then or ever the "best" is argumentative.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Didn't you once say listening to Klemperer is worse than getting hit by a bus?


No, that was Lenny's Vienna Beethoven cycle 

There is Bernstein I quite like, though. I think his Mahler, Copland, and Schumann are very good to great. But the tempo choices he makes on Beethoven drive me to distraction.

Either way, it was my opinion and was never represented as being a widely held or universal one.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

JAS said:


> I suspect that he was going for deeply contemplative in a profound and artistic way, but it may be that the force of his personality, and your perception of it, overwhelms that intent, at least for you.


No, it's just that for me personally, these images look contrived and silly, not deeply contemplative.

























This one looks like he's saying, "Yes, you are under my spell. I am the music."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

To me, they all look deeply contemplative. It may be that they are a bit self-consciously so.

I seem to remember hearing that having his eyes closed at least initially annoyed many of the musicians. They found him hard to "read" without seeing his eyes.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Either way, it was my opinion and was never represented as being a widely held or universal one.


Ah, the old "It is okay for me to present any opinion I like because it is only my opinion, but when you say something I don't like it is not okay because you make it sound like fact even though you never said that" ploy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

JAS said:


> To me, they all look deeply contemplative. It may be that they are a bit self-consciously so.


Fair enough. All in the eye of the beholder. Part of it goes to the whole thing of Karajan being image conscious and a mass marketer, so to me I see these images and I see someone TRYING to look contemplative and deep.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Fair enough. All in the eye of the beholder. Part of it goes to the whole thing of Karajan being image conscious and a mass marketer, so to me I see these images and I see someone TRYING to look contemplative and deep.


Marketing ploy aside, there are genuine reasons for Karajan to conduct with eyes closed, and it invites musicians to imagine how Maestro imagines his sound internally.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Ah, the old "It is okay for me to present any opinion I like because it is only my opinion, but when you say something I don't like it is not okay because you make it sound like fact even though you never said that" ploy.


No, no ploys.

"Karajan was an attractive man" was represented as a widely held opinion.

"Lenny's Beethoven cycle is worse than being hit by a bus" was represented only as a personal opinion for humorous effect (I believe it was part of a top 10 list, which is inherently subjectively personal).

I think the problem comes when people make bald assertions of things that are clearly subjective. Whether or not you engage in this is something I don't care to research at the moment. Personally, I try not to, and when pushed on it, I try to present evidence, as I did earlier in this thread.

I'm not trying to "win" the forum with ploys and bad faith arguments. I have my likes and dislikes, but I'm also curious about things I don't have experience with yet. I come here for conversation and to be exposed to new things.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, it's just that for me personally, these images look contrived and silly, not deeply contemplative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK we know he was a poseur - but some of us listen to the music. But just look at your avatar. Isn't that poseur Furtwangler?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JAS said:


> To me, they all look deeply contemplative. It may be that they are a bit self-consciously so.
> 
> I seem to remember hearing that having his eyes closed at least initially annoyed many of the musicians. They found him hard to "read" without seeing his eyes.


When he conducted the Cleveland Orchestra he shut his eyes and they panicked! He actually read the score in his mind when he was conducting apparently. Of course, musicians of the calibre of the BPO don't need someone to beat time. He was eyes open if he had a youth orchestra in front of him or in the opera house


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> When he conducted the Cleveland Orchestra he shut his eyes and they panicked! He actually read the score in his mind when he was conducting apparently. Of course, musicians of the calibre of the BPO don't need someone to beat time. He was eyes open if he had a youth orchestra in front of him or in the opera house


It's his method to create an unique sound.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> 'Like' is fine. It's 'fascination' that the OP wonders about.


No question that Karajan cultivated this aura of remoteness which fascinated people. It was part conscious but part because he was an introvert (as opposed to Bernstein) and helped him escape.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'm not trying to "win" the forum with ploys and bad faith arguments.


No, I'm not saying that. But it does come across to me that if people have opinions you don't like, they shouldn't express them.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> No, I'm not saying that. But it does come across to me that if people have opinions you don't like, they shouldn't express them.


I don't think I come off as particularly nasty or negative when someone expresses a thought I disagree with. But of course I don't have privileged access to others' impressions of my forum utterances.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

JAS said:


> I seem to remember hearing that having his eyes closed at least initially annoyed many of the musicians. They found him hard to "read" without seeing his eyes.


Definitely...the "eyes closed" could be considered a major technical flaw....eye contact is one of the main lines of communication between conductor and orchestra musician....very difficult to play with confidence or spontaneity if the conductor is not even looking at you...
A dear friend of mine studied choral conducting at Westminster Choir College - which was founded, developed by John Finlay Williamson....he had all sorts of techniques to teach conductors, to develop means of clear communication with his ensemble...
one of these exercises involved conducting the choral ensemble with the eyes only.....no arm, elbow, shoulder movement allowed....signal with the eyes, looks, glances, focus, etc....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ..... I see someone TRYING to look contemplative and deep.


You may have something there... closing your eyes to your musicians is pretty strange....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> When he conducted the Cleveland Orchestra he shut his eyes and they panicked! He actually read the score in his mind when he was conducting apparently. Of course, musicians of the calibre of the BPO don't need someone to beat time. He was eyes open if he had a youth orchestra in front of him or in the opera house


Cleveland doesn't need a time-beater, either...they might just appreciate the direct communication with the podium occupant.
Funny story, from a member of the Royal Choral Society...Karajan was conducting one of the London orchestras, choral/orchestra work - He starts the piece, eyes closed, slowly brings down the baton for soft opening - NO SOUND!! SILENCE!! nothing!! He opens eyes, looks around - the orchestra has their eyes closed as well!! LOL!!:lol:


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> Definitely...the "eyes closed" could be considered a major technical flaw....eye contact is one of the main lines of communication between conductor and orchestra musician....very difficult to play with confidence or spontaneity if the conductor is not even looking at you...
> A dear friend of mine studied choral conducting at Westminster Choir College - which was founded, developed by John Finlay Williamson....he had all sorts of techniques to teach conductors, to develop means of clear communication with his ensemble...
> one of these exercises involved conducting the choral ensemble with the eyes only.....no arm, elbow, shoulder movement allowed....signal with the eyes, looks, glances, focus, etc....


I think the players got used to that but with singers and choirs he also conducted eyes open (there're videos of him conducting Verdi's Requiem and Beethoven's 9th where you can see that). I think the players were quite confident that he knew what he was doing, at least BPO. Karajan himself talked about one incident:

_Even when my eyes are closed I know exactly when an oboist is running out of breath and with a slight motion I make the passage faster than rehearsed. The next day he asks me: "How did you notice that?". I answer him: "I was feeling it precisely."_

Karajan was a piano prodigy as a child and must have had a rather good ear for music. I am quite sure conducting eyes closed enhanced his musicianship and thus could be seen as a somewhat similar thing as Gould's "vocalising". The result is what matters and the results were certainly great.


----------



## GavinAmes (Jul 25, 2020)

Truly remarkable conductor, although to what extent was his career shaped by history?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

_Definitely...the "eyes closed" could be considered a major technical flaw....eye contact is one of the main lines of communication between conductor and orchestra musician....very difficult to play with confidence or spontaneity if the conductor is not even looking at you...
A dear friend of mine studied choral conducting at Westminster Choir College - which was founded, developed by John Finlay Williamson....he had all sorts of techniques to teach conductors, to develop means of clear communication with his ensemble...
one of these exercises involved conducting the choral ensemble with the eyes only.....no arm, elbow, shoulder movement allowed....signal with the eyes, looks, glances, focus, etc._...

It's quite funny when people talk about 'major technical flaws' in someone generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest conductors who ever lived as if he needed to go to Mr Williamson to learn how to conduct the BPO. You might just as well say the same about Furtwangler's atrocious technique. Or you might say that Glenn Gould should've gone to someone who told him to sit properly at the piano . What counts is the results. By the time conductors get to that stage they have got a bit beyond all that. Karajan knew how to conduct alright - he just didn't need to beat time with the BPO. His actual aim was to get players to listen to each other so (they said) it was like playing chamber music with a large orchestra.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

annaw said:


> I think the players were quite confident that he knew what he was doing, at least BPO.


Oh, he knew what he was doing...not sure the orchestra musicians did.


> Karajan himself talked about one incident:
> 
> _Even when my eyes are closed I know exactly when an oboist is running out of breath and with a slight motion I make the passage faster than rehearsed. _


_
Gee, he could have just looked at the guy!! Maybe the oboist needed to breath in a different place, add a breath...communication is a 2-way street.




Karajan was a piano prodigy as a child and must have had a rather good ear for music.

Click to expand...

Karajan was a huge talent, no doubt...
I don't think opening or closing his eyes affected his basic ability. Eyes closed conducting is just a rather strange mannerism, that runs contrary to the method used by so many great conductors...._


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

GavinAmes said:


> Truly remarkable conductor, although to what extent was his career shaped by history?


It's funny because his career was shaped by the British really. He was banned from conducting after the war because of his association with the Nazis but then the British recording Guru Walter Legge discovered him and started making recordings with him with his new orchestra, The Philarmonia, Legge had formed for recording. Karajan was banned from concerts but not recording so this did nicely for them both. Of course these early recordings were sensational and still are. Hence the legend was formed after the war


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> _
> It's quite funny when people talk about 'major technical flaws' in someone generally acknowledged to be one of the greatest conductors who ever lived_


_
It is what it is.



What counts is the results.

Click to expand...

My point exactly.




he just didn't need to beat time with the BPO. His actual aim was to get players to listen to each other so (they said) it was like playing chamber music with a large orchestra.

Click to expand...

Right, most all great conductors strive for that...listen to each other, no mere time-beating "Kappellmeister stuff"...Szell for one, was huge on that...and he, like Toscanini and Reiner, had hawklike sharp vision - Szell could tell when a musician had changed, and was playing a different instrument!! 
The chamber-music aspect is common to most all great conductors, it's the key._


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> It's funny because his career was shaped by the British really. He was banned from conducting after the war because of his association with the Nazis but then the British recording Guru Walter Legge discovered him and started making recordings with him with his new orchestra, The Philarmonia, Legge had formed for recording. Karajan was banned from concerts but not recording so this did nicely for them both. Of course these early recordings were sensational and still are. Hence the legend was formed after the war


The EMI sonics are pretty bad, it's those glorious DG recordings that sent Karajan to the stratosphere.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I am not a professional musician. The "eyes closed" thing therefore doesn't mean much to me. I listen mainly to FLAC rips of CDs on my music player over headphones.

When I decided to do a deep dive into classical after several decades of casual enjoyment, Karajan was the first search result for a comprehensive box set that covered a large repertoire in good sound. Did I get "imprinted" on his own particular orchestral style? Maybe. But I'd like to think I'm open-minded enough to reject or augment Karajan's recordings when they don't work (I've sought out Pinnock for Bach, Vivaldi and Mozart, and many other bits and bobs here, such as Belohlavek for Dvorak, Gardiner for Beethoven and Mendelssohn, Bernstein for Schumann, Copland and Mahler).

HVK/BPO (with some VPO) has, pound for pound, disc for disc, provided me with more listening pleasure than any other conductor/orchestra combo. And it was organized in easy, comprehensive boxes for me (I would say my next favorites are probably Colin Davis/LSO and Gardiner/ORR).

So my answer to the OP is really the same: number and relative quality of recordings, marketing.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The EMI sonics are pretty bad, it's those glorious DG recordings that sent Karajan to the stratosphere.


I actually quite like the EMI recordings for sound quality!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I am not a professional musician. The "eyes closed" thing therefore doesn't mean much to me. I listen mainly to FLAC rips of CDs on my music player over headphones.
> 
> When I decided to do a deep dive into classical after several decades of casual enjoyment, Karajan was the first search result for a comprehensive box set that covered a large repertoire in good sound. Did I get "imprinted" on his own particular orchestral style? Maybe. But I'd like to think I'm open-minded enough to reject or augment Karajan's recordings when they don't work (I've sought out Pinnock for Bach, Vivaldi and Mozart, and many other bits and bobs here, such as Belohlavek for Dvorak, Gardiner for Beethoven and Mendelssohn, Bernstein for Schumann, Copland and Mahler).
> 
> ...


You are still going through your "Karajan Phase" (and it's a long one).

There is a danger of homogenizing your taste, but I think one day you will find tremendous joy in other recordings.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Definitely...the "eyes closed" could be considered a *major technical flaw*....eye contact is one of the main lines of communication between conductor and orchestra musician....very difficult to play with confidence or spontaneity if the conductor is not even looking at you...


This is the problem with the conservatory mindset. It assumes everyone should have the same priorities and goals.

Karajan was achieving what he wanted with his eyes closed, just like Furtwangler was achieving what he wanted with his mercurial beat.

I think Karajan is overrated by some, but he was still a great conductor. Most of all he was an individual, which is something sorely lacking today in part due to the conservatory mindset. I would take 1000 Karajans over mediocre personalities conducting in the "correct" way.

But, we all have our different priorities...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> This is the problem with the conservatory mindset. It assumes everyone should have the same priorities and goals.


No, obviously musicians, conductors are going to have their own way of things things...conformity may be a passing stage in one's musical development, but it largely disappears as one matures....there are many effective ways to perform and conduct great music. 


> Karajan was achieving what he wanted with his eyes closed,


I guess, makes you wonder how much better it might have been if he actually made eye contact!!??
Why would he discard a major channel of communication?? Did he do that with VPO?? I wonder what would have happened if he tried that with NYPO, or Chicago back in the 50s, 60s?? They were pretty tough, cynical outfits, so is VPO. The English could be, as shown, but they were more "gentlemanly " about it as a rule



> I think Karajan is overrated by some, but he was still a great conductor. Most of all he was an individual,


That he certainly was...major talent, no doubt.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> No, obviously musicians, conductors are going to have their own way of things things...conformity may be a passing stage in one's musical development, but it largely disappears as one matures....there are many effective ways to perform and conduct great music.
> 
> I guess, makes you wonder how much better it might have been if he actually made eye contact!!??
> Why would he discard a major channel of communication?? Did he do that with VPO?? I wonder what would have happened if he tried that with NYPO, or Chicago back in the 50s, 60s?? They were pretty tough, cynical outfits, so is VPO. The English could be, as shown, but they were more "gentlemanly " about it as a rule
> ...


If you watch him conduct Bruckner 8th with VPO, he had his eyes shut:




He opened them at times as well.

Imo VPO was really happy to have him back after he had finished in Berlin.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

annaw said:


> If you watch him conduct Bruckner 8th with VPO, he had his eyes shut:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


VPO has remarkable flexibility, esp in Austro-German repertoire....they sound completely different under Karajan, Solti, Reiner, Bernstein, Furtwangler...that always impressed me...


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

annaw said:


> If you watch him conduct Bruckner 8th with VPO, he had his eyes shut:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He had a fallout with BPO in the 80s so many recordings were made with VPO instead.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He had a fallout with BPO in the 80s so many recordings were made with VPO instead.


That was the Sabine Meyer affair, was it not??


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> That was the Sabine Meyer affair, was it not??


Yep. Celi also had a 12 years lawsuit with a female trombonist too (the situation was reversed). BPO right now looks pretty diverse but I am not sure conservative fans will approve it's fresher sound.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He had a fallout with BPO in the 80s so many recordings were made with VPO instead.


The total looks to be 15 recordings with VPO in the 1980s, at least from DG (compared to 60 with BPO).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You are still going through your "Karajan Phase" (and it's a long one).
> 
> There is a danger of homogenizing your taste, but I think one day you will find tremendous joy in other recordings.


Somewhat impertinent to tell a fellow music lover what he or what he shouldn't be listening to isn't it?


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Somewhat impertinent to tell a fellow music lover what he or what he shouldn't be listening to isn't it?


It's just a phase...s/he'll get over it


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> It's just a phase...s/he'll get over it


Maybe not a he or a she. I suspect that UTM is a bot - hence the name.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He had a fallout with BPO in the 80s so many recordings were made with VPO instead.


The fallout was about his appointment of a young clarinettist called Sabine Mayer who the orchestra did not approve of. He actually did not have a right to appoint her over the orchestras head. By that time he had probably stay too long at the orchestra anyway and needed to be guest conducting. The BPO certainly felt the financial draft when he left. But we all need to learn that however good we are we all have a sell by date


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> He had a fallout with BPO in the 80s so many recordings were made with VPO instead.


Wiki says he didn't resign from the BPO til 1989...the year he died. The Meyer fallout happened in 1982-83. So he still hung on for 6 years.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Wiki says he didn't resign from the BPO til 1989...the year he died. The Meyer fallout happened in 1982-83. So he still hung on for 6 years.


HvK got an appointment 'for life' with the BPO, which is what it became. I think this was a big mistake, no conductor in his seventies is capable of being a real chief, with all the hassle that comes with the job. Like many marriages, the chemistry faded away gradually. I think both spouses were caught in it, likely because the combination had turned into a very profitable money machine. Instead of resigning, Karajan made his testament recordings with the VPO (Bruckner 7 and 8), this must have been quite offensive towards the BPO. It would have been more decent if one of both spouses would have broken up, instead of keeping each other hostage. The BPO was extremely quick in appointing Abbado to succeed Karajan.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Wiki says he didn't resign from the BPO til 1989...the year he died. The Meyer fallout happened in 1982-83. So he still hung on for 6 years.


After the Meyer incident his relationship with the BPO changed drastically. Its easy to say both sides were to blame and whilst that was partly the case the BPO also took advantage of Karajan's failing health. He had a number of operations in the 80s and even had a bout of Lyme disease. The BPO started to exert its power and even negotiated its own film deal without Karajan. It nearly went further. Streseman has said that the BPO tried to renegotiate the DG record deal, proposing a new logo for the BPO and less of a focus on Karajan as conductor. DG rejected this out of hand, largely due to the fact that Karajan's recordings made up 25% of DG's sales. They even proposed ditching the DG contract and signing a deal with CBS but this was never followed through. Karajan knew nothing of this and if he had known Streseman says he would have resigned even earlier (he had a big thing about loyalty). Its easy to say it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other but the BPO did their best to make life awkward for Karajan and he tired of their reluctance to meet him halfway in his latter years. Their relationship between 1984 and 1986 was particularly bad (the 85 tour had some very mixed reviews where there was a 'darkness' to some performances), which was coincidentally when he recorded his last Beethoven cycle with them. He may have resigned in April 89 but the resignation letter was written in January of that year. Some biographers have suggested Carlos Kleiber was the one who talked him out of resigning earlier but that is just hearsay (although it is quite possible since they both confided in each other in regular correspondences and Kleiber often sat in on Karajan's rehearsals). Reading between the lines on the Meyer incident, I've always felt the same, that it was a combination of the BPO trying to wield its power and some rather ugly sexism. Meyer obviously felt the same as she has attested to since. In the interviews the orchestra gave during the Meyer incident, the men expressed some overtly sexist views with some claiming that it is impossible for women to really play in unison with men, because they have different bodies!


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

DavidA said:


> He was eyes open if he had a youth orchestra in front of him


Not so. A friend of mine was in the European Youth Orchestra in the 70's and Karajan was one of the conductors they played under. In rehearsals he was always shutting his eyes as the music started, so one afternoon they (bravely!) decided to all close their eyes just as he brought the baton down to start. When the sound of complete silence greeted his downbeat, Karajan opened his eyes to see a sea of closed ones before him. He was actually very good about it, and laughed and explained that when he closed his eyes he saw the score in front of him.

When I was in my teens he was definitely seen as the jetset/playboy type in my neck of the woods, it almost became a sort of joke.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> HvK got an appointment 'for life' with the BPO, which is what it became. I think this was a big mistake, no conductor in his seventies is capable of being a real chief, with all the hassle that comes with the job. Like many marriages, the chemistry faded away gradually. I think both spouses were caught in it, likely because the combination had turned into a very profitable money machine. Instead of resigning, Karajan made his testament recordings with the VPO (Bruckner 7 and 8), this must have been quite offensive towards the BPO. It would have been more decent if one of both spouses would have broken up, instead of keeping each other hostage. The BPO was extremely quick in appointing Abbado to succeed Karajan.


The money was secondary. Karajan had a love of power and at the end of the day the Sabine Meyer affair was one in which the orchestra - rightly of wrongly - chose to put their foot down in. The lesson is that however good you are - and Karajan - no-one is indispensable. The VPO were actually delighted with the recordings he made with them after the BPO spat. They made plenty of dough! The whole thing was quite unnecessary because Karajan should have left with plaudits. The lesson - leave when you are on a winner!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Iota said:


> Not so. A friend of mine was in the European Youth Orchestra in the 70's and Karajan was one of the conductors they played under. In rehearsals he was always shutting his eyes as the music started, so one afternoon they (bravely!) decided to all close their eyes just as he brought the baton down to start. When the sound of complete silence greeted his downbeat, Karajan opened his eyes to see a sea of closed ones before him. He was actually very good about it, and laughed and explained that when he closed his eyes he saw the score in front of him.
> 
> When I was in my teens he was definitely seen as the jetset/playboy type in my neck of the woods, it almost became a sort of joke.


Thanks for this. I stand corrected! I heard that on the occasion when he conducted the European Youth Orchestra he paid his own expenses to go to the rehearsals and took an interest in the youngsters. The only Karajanism was when he contacted the local airport and asked if the runway could be extended to accommodate his private jet! :lol:


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

DavidA said:


> The money was secondary. Karajan had a love of power and at the end of the day the Sabine Meyer affair was one in which the orchestra - rightly of wrongly - chose to put their foot down in. The lesson is that however good you are - and Karajan - no-one is indispensable. The VPO were actually delighted with the recordings he made with them after the BPO spat. They made plenty of dough! The whole thing was quite unnecessary because Karajan should have left with plaudits. The lesson - leave when you are on a winner!


Some have suggested that the BPO played a huge part in their own downfall pre and post Karajan and I'd probably agree with this. Leon Spierer, first concertmaster of Berliner Philharmoniker from 1963-93, has contradicted himself on a few occasions about their relation ship with Karajan in the 80s. In his original comments on the Meyer incident he claimed that Meyer was appointed over their heads yet in a post-retirement interview he claimed that they asked her to join and voted her in and then voted her out after her probation period. 
_
".... with the exceptional clarinetist Sabine Meyer, who played several times as assisting musician with our orchestra. We thought that she would be a great addition to the orchestra in the future. She had full support from Von Karajan, but only partial support from the orchestra."
_

He even contradicts himself in that quote. He fails to mention, in that interview, the fact that BPO members would move their chairs away from her, ignore her completely or make snide sexist comments to her. He also claimed later on that Karajan was greedy and made the DG real behind their back, which was completely untrue. The contract with DG had to be ratified by the orchestra and the BPO management. Any other record deals made by Karajan were personal deals made for his early pre-BPO recordings. By the time of his resignation Karajan was fed up with the attitude of the orchestra who were more focused on fighting against him rather than improving the orchestra. By 1987 they had 14 permanent positions unfilled. Interestingly Karajan attended few auditions after the Meyer dispute but this was partially due to Karajan's health in later years.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Merl said:


> After the Meyer incident his relationship with the BPO changed drastically. Its easy to say both sides were to blame and whilst that was partly the case the BPO also took advantage of Karajan's failing health. He had a number of operations in the 80s and even had a bout of Lyme disease. The BPO started to exert its power and even negotiated its own film deal without Karajan. It nearly went further. Streseman has said that the BPO tried to renegotiate the DG record deal, proposing a new logo for the BPO and less of a focus on Karajan as conductor. DG rejected this out of hand, largely due to the fact that Karajan's recordings made up 25% of DG's sales. They even proposed ditching the DG contract and signing a deal with CBS but this was never followed through. *Karajan knew nothing of this and if he had known Streseman says he would have resigned even earlier (he had a big thing about loyalty)*. Its easy to say it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other but the BPO did their best to make life awkward for Karajan and he tired of their reluctance to meet him halfway in his latter years. Their relationship between 1984 and 1986 was particularly bad (the 85 tour had some very mixed reviews where there was a 'darkness' to some performances), which was coincidentally when he recorded his last Beethoven cycle with them. He may have resigned in April 89 but the resignation letter was written in January of that year. Some biographers have suggested Carlos Kleiber was the one who talked him out of resigning earlier but that is just hearsay (although it is quite possible since they both confided in each other in regular correspondences and Kleiber often sat in on Karajan's rehearsals). Reading between the lines on the Meyer incident, I've always felt the same, that it was a combination of the BPO trying to wield its power and some rather ugly sexism. Meyer obviously felt the same as she has attested to since. In the interviews the orchestra gave during the Meyer incident, the men expressed some overtly sexist views with some claiming that it is impossible for women to really play in unison with men, because they have different bodies!


Another incident from the eighties was on the cover of his last (digital) Beethoven cycle for DG, Karajan's name appears more prominent than even the composers name. This was new and it can easily be explained as another move in a relationship gone sour, just like the last two VPO Bruckner recordings for DG. It seems questionable that Karajan would not have known that the BPO was trying to cut loose from DG, he didn't seem to be the man to be ill-informed on any business deals. In the seventies and early eighties, Karajan and the BPO released recordings for EMI, such as Strauss, Bruckner and Sibelius. Karajan himself closed a deal with Sony, where he released video performances from the eighties, like Bruckner 8 with the VPO and a French program (Debussy and Ravel) with the BPO.

Likely, the BPO was a free agent after Karajan's death. many major labels started recording with the BPO, such as Philips, Sony, RCA and again EMI.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

From an interview with Leon Spierer for Violinist.com on the subject of discussion. Spierer was concert master of the BPO from 1963-1993.



> -M: It has been said that in the last few years of the maestro's [Karajan's] life, there were divisions among the orchestra. What are some of your recollections from those times?
> 
> -LS: First, let me state that this is only my personal opinion and nobody else's. Musically speaking, there were some composers and some repertoire that didn't suit him so well, such as Bach, Haydn, Mozart, some Beethoven symphonies, as well as some Schubert and Schumann symphonies. Yet some other Schubert and Schumann symphonies fit him extremely well! Nobody is perfect, and even the greatest conductors aren't equally good at everything. However, on the music that fit him well, let's call it Bruckner, the French, the Italian, some Beethoven symphonies, opera, he was truly exceptional. But, as far as what you are referring to, there were indeed difficulties. (sigh) He [Karajan] was very greedy. I don't have full knowledge of what went on behind the scenes, regarding his contracts with the record companies. In those days we made many records, and he seemed to use that production for his own personal gain. The orchestra was dissatisfied because of this.
> 
> Then there was a very divisive case in the year '82. In those days the orchestra consisted in its entirety of men, even though we always invited women to our auditions. The orchestra was always very strict in only hiring the candidates whom we considered the very best. In '82 we had auditions for violin, and as usual there were several men and women invited. One of the women, Madeleine Carruzzo from Switzerland, played exceptionally well! Immediately the entire orchestra voted to hire her, and she still plays with the orchestra to this day, she's been with them 28 years [29 years as of 02/2011]. Then something similar happened, which you may have heard about, with the exceptional clarinetist Sabine Meyer, who played several times as assisting musician with our orchestra. We thought that she would be a great addition to the orchestra in the future. She had full support from Von Karajan, but only partial support from the orchestra. She was on probation with the orchestra for a year and, during that year, the orchestra noticed that her sound in the piano [dynamic] was precious; in the mezzo-piano it was most beautiful; but past that, during the time that we knew her musically her sound, in the dynamic sense, did not develop sufficiently. The orchestra always placed the highest priority not on the musician as an individual, but on how we thought that musician would blend with the orchestra for the next 30 or 40 years. We determined that in the previous years her sound had not developed enough for our group. This has nothing to do with her potential as a soloist; obviously she has had a world class career. It just wasn't appropriate for the group. She herself realized that the orchestra wasn't too happy with her and resigned, but Karajan still was totally in her favor, totally. So there was a big clash between orchestra and conductor, and this, combined with the financial disagreements, caused that suddenly, out of nowhere, a little atomic bomb exploded, so to speak, and unfortunately it left many marks. Since that time, in '85, he was very bitter for having lost the great power he once had in the administrative side of things, even though we always respected his musical authority. He didn't like this very much...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Another incident from the eighties was on the cover of his last (digital) Beethoven cycle for DG, *Karajan's name appears more prominent than even the composers name.* This was new and it can easily be explained as another move in a relationship gone sour, just like the last two VPO Bruckner recordings for DG. It seems questionable that Karajan would not have known that the BPO was trying to cut loose from DG, he didn't seem to be the man to be ill-informed on any business deals. In the seventies and early eighties, Karajan and the BPO released recordings for EMI, such as Strauss, Bruckner and Sibelius. Karajan himself closed a deal with Sony, where he released video performances from the eighties, like Bruckner 8 with the VPO and a French program (Debussy and Ravel) with the BPO.
> 
> Likely, the BPO was a free agent after Karajan's death. many major labels started recording with the BPO, such as Philips, Sony, RCA and again EMI.
> 
> View attachment 140497


This is completely unexceptional. Just marketing.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

DavidA said:


> This is completely unexceptional. Just marketing.
> 
> View attachment 140500


LOL, what about this? I think it's Muti..


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

Replying to the Original Post. Well, IMHO, we should not overthink it - simple: he was a good conductor. Not the best, not better than everyone or anyone, simply a good conductor that put out some great recordings and some not so great.

v


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

vmartell said:


> Replying to the Original Post. Well, IMHO, we should not overthink it - simple: he was a good conductor. Not the best, not better than everyone or anyone, simply a good conductor that put out some great recordings and some not so great.
> 
> v


I don't think you understand how this works. Please rephrase in the form of a Hot Take.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

vmartell said:


> Replying to the Original Post. Well, IMHO, we should not overthink it - simple: he was a good conductor. Not the best, not better than everyone or anyone, simply a good conductor that put out some great recordings and some not so great.
> 
> v


Karajan was not a mere "good" conductor. He was pretty extraordinary and inimitable.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2020)

vmartell said:


> Replying to the Original Post. Well, IMHO, we should not overthink it - simple: he was a good conductor. Not the best, not better than everyone or anyone, simply a good conductor that put out some great recordings and some not so great.
> 
> v


That may be true...but it doesn't explain 'fascination'.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> That may be true...but it doesn't explain 'fascination'.


The OP was ' Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century? Why have his recordings dominated?'

I think this is easily explained in that his recordings were generally of very high quality. Even the early EMI ones. I think there are some parts of the world who are 'fascinated' by him but generally we just appreciate his music making here. Whether he was the best conductor in the 20th century is a matter of opinion. He was certainly one of the best and certainly the most powerful. To say he was just a good conductor does not explain the phenomenon any more than to say the Beatles were just a good pop group explains them


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Reading the thread above, I don't think there is much fascination with Karajan the musician (aside from some chat about the closing of eyes). There does seem to be a fair amount of fascination with Karajan the businessman, and maybe with Karajan the egotist. Personally that doesn't interest me, as I really don't care about that: music is not my line of work; it might be different if it was.

To contrast this thread with the notorious Furtwangler and Toscanini equivalents, maybe we have the following:
- Furtwangler inspires fascination because of pseudo-philosophical aspects of his approach
- Toscanini (I think) inspires fascination mainly among Furtwangler fans, for being "wrong"

It would be inconsistent of Toscanini admirers to be fascinated with him, as his point seems to be that any such fascination should be beside the point: as fascination with Toscanini is not to be found in the score. (People might be interested in his technique, though.) However, there does seem to be a lot of passion inspired by placing F and T in opposition to each other.

Maybe HvK cannot readily be positioned at one or another extreme on some sort of subjective/objective axis, and so doesn't inspire the fascination/passion. Those who like his recordings just like his recordings, and those who don't don't, mainly based it seems on how they like their orchestral sound to be balanced. (I also have a nagging feeling that some who don't like his recordings are in reality carrying over their thoughts about Karajan the man into their reaction to the recordings.)

As a question for the much better informed, did HvK ever express any sort of musical philosophy along the lines of Furtwangler or Toscanini?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

_From an interview with Leon Spierer for Violinist.com on the subject of discussion. Spierer was concert master of the BPO from 1963-1993.

-M: It has been said that in the last few years of the maestro's [Karajan's] life, there were divisions among the orchestra. What are some of your recollections from those times?

-LS: First, let me state that this is only my personal opinion and nobody else's. Musically speaking, there were some composers and some repertoire that didn't suit him so well, such as Bach, Haydn, Mozart, some Beethoven symphonies, as well as some Schubert and Schumann symphonies. Yet some other Schubert and Schumann symphonies fit him extremely well! Nobody is perfect, and even the greatest conductors aren't equally good at everything. However, on the music that fit him well, let's call it Bruckner, the French, the Italian, some Beethoven symphonies, opera, he was truly exceptional. But, as far as what you are referring to, there were indeed difficulties. (sigh) He [Karajan] was very greedy. I don't have full knowledge of what went on behind the scenes, regarding his contracts with the record companies. In those days we made many records, and he seemed to use that production for his own personal gain. The orchestra was dissatisfied because of this.

Then there was a very divisive case in the year '82. In those days the orchestra consisted in its entirety of men, even though we always invited women to our auditions. The orchestra was always very strict in only hiring the candidates whom we considered the very best. In '82 we had auditions for violin, and as usual there were several men and women invited. One of the women, Madeleine Carruzzo from Switzerland, played exceptionally well! Immediately the entire orchestra voted to hire her, and she still plays with the orchestra to this day, she's been with them 28 years [29 years as of 02/2011]. Then something similar happened, which you may have heard about, with the exceptional clarinetist Sabine Meyer, who played several times as assisting musician with our orchestra. We thought that she would be a great addition to the orchestra in the future. She had full support from Von Karajan, but only partial support from the orchestra. She was on probation with the orchestra for a year and, during that year, the orchestra noticed that her sound in the piano [dynamic] was precious; in the mezzo-piano it was most beautiful; but past that, during the time that we knew her musically her sound, in the dynamic sense, did not develop sufficiently. The orchestra always placed the highest priority not on the musician as an individual, but on how we thought that musician would blend with the orchestra for the next 30 or 40 years. We determined that in the previous years her sound had not developed enough for our group. This has nothing to do with her potential as a soloist; obviously she has had a world class career. It just wasn't appropriate for the group. She herself realized that the orchestra wasn't too happy with her and resigned, but Karajan still was totally in her favor, totally. So there was a big clash between orchestra and conductor, and this, combined with the financial disagreements, caused that suddenly, out of nowhere, a little atomic bomb exploded, so to speak, and unfortunately it left many marks. Since that time, in '85, he was very bitter for having lost the great power he once had in the administrative side of things, even though we always respected his musical authority. He didn't like this very much..._

I think one of the things that I think one of the things that Spierer does not mention is the fact that under Karajan the orchestra were the best paid in Europe with large recording fees in addition to state salaries. This of course started to change after the Sabine Meyer incident when Karajan decided to use the VPO. For example the For example theBPO were pencilled in for the recording of The Four Seasons with Mutter But then but then HvK decided to make a point by recording it with the VPO. As the disk was a huge seller then the Berlin orchestra lost out. Of course they felt the financial draft hugely when he left. So it was not just Karajan who was greedy. Amazing the way people see things through a distorting lens with a sigh!
One can agree though the Sabine Mayer issue was a matter of power and Karajan couldn't bear to lose. He had got to a stage where he was knee deep in doormats and couldn't understand why the doormats were not lying down


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

The prior question was also illuminating:



> -M: I would imagine that working with Maestro Von Karajan was different to working with any other conductor. Tell me about your experience working with him.
> 
> -LS: In all those years, naturally the orchestra had many guest conductors that would come in for just one or two concerts at a time. Among them I should say Sir John Barbirolli and Leonard Bernstein were very noteworthy. They were artists who left very deep imprints on me. But, to work with Von Karajan was always exceptional. At first I had to get to know his style, which was different than what I was used to. So the first season was very difficult for me, because I didn't know how to produce the sounds that he wanted. You should remember that I always sat about a meter away from him in rehearsals and concerts! Until after about a year of playing with him, something suddenly clicked inside my head. After that, I was like a duck in the water. Happy! I've always thought that the great conductors don't need to conduct as much, what they need to do is to inspire. And this man was prodigious at that! He had a very clear idea of the sound he was after. This was in spite of the fact that he didn't play any of the orchestral instruments. Still, he knew how he wanted them to sound. And he also had at his disposal a great orchestra. You can imagine that this orchestra has been traditionally held in the highest regard since the beginning of the 20th century. Because of that, the musicians that played there did not seek to move anywhere else, once they were fortunate enough to find a spot in the Berlin Philharmonic. Instead they would stay and play with the orchestra for 30 or 40 years. In this way, we built a way of playing together that was exceptional!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MatthewWeflen said:


> The prior question was also illuminating:


I think it is interesting that musicians who worked under HvK mayy have had reservations about the man but not his musicianship.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I think it is interesting that musicians who worked under HvK mayy have had reservations about the man but not his musicianship.


From BPO's documentary of the triumphant return of Celibidache, it seems that old BPO members actually preferred Celi over Karajan on the artistic grounds. The interviews gave the impression that Karajan was the pragmatic choice (the old members used words such as "salesman" and "politician" to describe the young Karajan), young Celi's volcanic and straightforward personality couldn't have worked with the senior musicians of the orchestra at that time.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I think it is interesting that musicians who worked under HvK mayy have had reservations about the man but not his musicianship.


Tbh, DA, there's few musicians who had a bad word to say about him. Most people who met him all said he was nothing like they expected and was extremely shy, IRL. Furty's widow called him "the most courteous man you could meet". He was well liked even amongst his peers. Apart from one particular petty, jealous conductor, even the old guard got on with him (de Sabata, Walter, Strauss, Knappertbusch, Mitropoulos, etc) and he was highly regarded amongst his peers (Klempy, Szell, etc).


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

DavidA said:


> _From an interview with Leon Spierer for Violinist.com on the subject of discussion. Spierer was concert master of the BPO from 1963-1993.
> 
> -M: It has been said that in the last few years of the maestro's [Karajan's] life, there were divisions among the orchestra. What are some of your recollections from those times?
> 
> ...


So, the BPO concertmaster for 30 years says that Karajan was greedy and you respond with your opinion (based on .....?) that the BPO was also greedy. As a self-declared master of fact-checking, you might take a look in the mirror:lol:

Your example of Vivaldi/Mutter/VPO actually shows it was all about the money and Karajan was indeed the Scrooge McDuck. He 'punished' the BPO by not allowing them a very minor part of the profit on a recording that had no artistic value, as he was not at all a master of the genre. He just wanted to produce a bestseller and he would decide on who would share in the profits, money talks. We can finally close this longstanding controversy (sigh).

PS: some strange repetitions are going on in your post.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2020)

DavidA said:


> The OP was ' Why was he the best conductor of the 20th century? Why have his recordings dominated?'
> 
> I think this is easily explained in that his recordings were generally of very high quality. Even the early EMI ones. I think there are some parts of the world who are 'fascinated' by him but generally we just appreciate his music making here. Whether he was the best conductor in the 20th century is a matter of opinion. He was certainly one of the best and certainly the most powerful. To say he was just a good conductor does not explain the phenomenon any more than to say the Beatles were just a good pop group explains them


The OP includes the title, hence my point back to the person I was replying to.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> So, the BPO concertmaster for 30 years says that Karajan was greedy and you respond with your opinion (based on .....?) that the BPO was also greedy. As a self-declared master of fact-checking, you might take a look in the mirror:lol:
> 
> Your example of Vivaldi/Mutter/VPO actually shows it was all about the money and Karajan was indeed the Scrooge McDuck. He 'punished' the BPO by not allowing them a very minor part of the profit on a recording that had no artistic value, as he was not at all a master of the genre. He just wanted to produce a bestseller and he would decide on who would share in the profits, money talks. We can finally close this longstanding controversy (sigh).
> 
> PS: some strange repetitions are going on in your post.


My opinion is based on autobiographical evidence you may not have read. I did not say that Karajan was not greedy. You are totally wrong of course when you say that the Vivaldi / Mutter thing was about money. It was about power with money as the bargaining tool. You are actually saying something with strange repetitions going on in your posts. You are saying that the recording would have a very minor part of the profit for the BPO which is not true. They knew that it will be very profitable for them and that is why it hurt them when it went to the VP0. After all their previous recording of the Four Seasons under Karajan had also been a best seller. If money had not been involved it wouldn't have mattered. (sigh, sigh!)


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> From BPO's documentary of the triumphant return of Celibidache, it seems that old BPO members actually preferred Celi over Karajan on the artistic grounds. The interviews gave the impression that Karajan was the pragmatic choice (the old members used words such as "salesman" and "politician" to describe the young Karajan), young Celi's volcanic and straightforward personality couldn't have worked with the senior musicians of the orchestra at that time.


No question either that they knew Celi wouldn't sell records. He didn't record.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

Eclectic Al said:


> Reading the thread above, I don't think there is much fascination with Karajan the musician (aside from some chat about the closing of eyes). There does seem to be a fair amount of fascination with Karajan the businessman, and maybe with Karajan the egotist. Personally that doesn't interest me, as I really don't care about that: music is not my line of work; it might be different if it was.
> 
> To contrast this thread with the notorious Furtwangler and Toscanini equivalents, maybe we have the following:
> - Furtwangler inspires fascination because of pseudo-philosophical aspects of his approach
> ...


This might belong in the other thread - I have always thought that thinking that

1.- Karajan is the true Anti-Furtwaengler
2.- Celibidache is the true Anti-Toscanini

is more accurate than thinking of Toscanini as the anti-Furtwangler... Karajan's philosophy is in the sound... no need for words...

v


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vmartell said:


> This might belong in the other thread - I have always thought that thinking that
> 
> 1.- Karajan is the true Anti-Furtwaengler
> 2.- Celibidache is the true Anti-Toscanini
> ...


I don't think Karajancouldbe described as anti-Furtwangler. Different yes but not anti.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

vmartell said:


> This might belong in the other thread - I have always thought that thinking that
> 
> 1.- Karajan is the true Anti-Furtwaengler
> 2.- Celibidache is the true Anti-Toscanini
> ...


Karajan combined the best of Furtwangler and Toscanini into an easily marketable package. Karajan did not have a systematic "philosophy of music" he had a "philosophy of sound" expressed through his music. His live concerts are also allegedly more free-flowing than his recordings.

Celibidache was anti-everyone other than Furtwangler, this made him very unpopular but he had strong artistic (philosophical) visions and convictions and had the integrity to realize them without compromise. His philosophy of music is certainly not BS if anyone actually tries to understand his essays.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

vmartell said:


> This might belong in the other thread - I have always thought that thinking that
> 
> 1.- Karajan is the true Anti-Furtwaengler
> 2.- Celibidache is the true Anti-Toscanini
> ...


Karajan was not anti-Furty. He admired both Furty and Toscanini a great deal yet neither had much time for the 'young upstart'. Karajan had a vision in his head on how a piece should sound and he would strive for that. To suggest that he was anti any of these guys is wrong. He was very much his own man. He knew what he wanted and was no fence-sitter between the two either. I doubt anyone knew the scores of the works he performed any better than him. He studied them rigorously and committed them to memory.

As a side note the reason the BPO chose Karajan instead of Celi is they saw a younger man with a more flexible approach. Celi was very fixed in his opinions and style. I think it was one of the cellists in the BPO who said years later that they chose Karajan as they viewed him as a more even-handed musician. It didn't help that Celi had a blazing row with some high-profile members of the BPO a few days before the vote. Others have opined that Celi was viewed as more inflexible in character and not open to change.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Merl said:


> Karajan was not anti-Furty. He admired both Furty and Toscanini a great deal yet neither had much time for the 'young upstart'. Karajan had a vision in his head on how a piece should sound and he would strive for that. To suggest that he was anti any of these guys is wrong. He was very much his own man. He knew what he wanted and was no fence-sitter between the two either. I doubt anyone knew the scores of the works he performed any better than him. He studied them rigorously and committed them to memory.
> 
> As a side note the reason the BPO chose Karajan instead of Celi is they saw a younger man with a more flexible approach. Celi was very fixed in his opinions and style. I think it was one of the cellists in the BPO who said years later that they chose Karajan as they viewed him as a more even-handed musician. It didn't help that Celi had a blazing row with some high-profile members of the BPO a few days before the vote. Others have opined that Celi was viewed as more inflexible in character and not open to change.


Karajan can be quite inflexible as well, his infamous collaboration with Richter (and Rostropovich and Oistrakh) demonstrated this aspect of his personality. Even the young Kissin was uncomfortable with the "snail" tempo he chose for Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto but had to go with it (Karajan loved Kissin as a musical talent). Great artists have to be self-absorbed, Karajan had superior social skills than Celibidache (who was an uncompromising idealist).


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Every great conductor has a strong ego, and can be very inflexible....how else are you going to get 80+ Heifetz-Oistrakh wannabes, who have strong egos themselves, to do it your way??


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> Every great conductor has a strong ego, and can be very inflexible....how else are you going to get 80+ Heifetz-Oistrakh wannabes, who have strong egos themselves, to do it your way??


You can coax them like Bruno Walter or Simon Rattle.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You can coax them like Bruno Walter or Simon Rattle.


Right, Walter and Monteux were known to be very courteous and respectful of their musicians. Walter even tried to learn the names of all his section principals whetever he conducted...he would address them by name...
But both Monteux and Walter were strong personalities who knew exactly what they wanted, and were adamant in their pursuit of the musical goal.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I never understood lumping Monteux with Toscanini/Reiner/Solti. Monteux wasn’t rigid. He was full of life and spontaneity. His 1930 Paris Symphonie Fantastique is a blast. And his 1951 BSO Rite of Spring is my favorite. Very in the moment, not stale at all.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I never understood lumping Monteux with Toscanini/Reiner/Solti. Monteux wasn't rigid. He was full of life and spontaneity.


So were Reiner, Toscanini and Solti!! They weren't at all rigid, and their performances brimmed with life and spontaneity. 
Reiner and Monteux both used a very economical stick technique, very clear and accurate...no "delayed beat" stuff...their musicianship was impeccable, always made sense musically.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Scrooge McDuck was a character with many fine qualities, despite his predilection towards the acquisition of wealth. He was, for instance, very good with his nephews.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Karajan can be quite inflexible as well, his infamous collaboration with Richter (and Rostropovich and Oistrakh) demonstrated this aspect of his personality. Even the young Kissin was uncomfortable with the "snail" tempo he chose for Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto but had to go with it (Karajan loved Kissin as a musical talent). Great artists have to be self-absorbed, Karajan had superior social skills than Celibidache (who was an uncompromising idealist).


I think it's pretty silly to mention a couple of incidents. The tripleconcerto incident was all about control. In the Tchaikovsky Karajan always set that pace. I always think when he was wrong when I hear it. It is too slow. Funny that a great conductor of Tchaikovsky never did give a great performance of the concerto with the soloist


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I think it's pretty silly to mention a couple of incidents. The tripleconcerto incident was all about control. In the Tchaikovsky Karajan always set that pace. I always think when he was wrong when I hear it. It is too slow. Funny that a great conductor of Tchaikovsky never did give a great performance of the concerto with the soloist


Karajan was not the best conductor to work with soloists. Given how prolific he was, his collaboration results (he's better with young talents) are largely subpar. Abbado, on the other hand, made a bunch of classic recordings with Argerich and Pollini (among others).


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Karajan was not the best conductor to work with soloists. Given how prolific he was, his collaboration results (he's better with young talents) are largely subpar. Abbado, on the other hand, made a bunch of classic recordings with Argerich and Pollini (among others).


Karajan certainly made some superb recordings with soloists in his younger days. His later ones were patchy as he believed he was the interpreter rather than the accompanist. His work with Mutter and the young Zimermann is really good and the Dvorak with rostropovich is a classic. But sometimes he could be just too inhibiting. Ormandy was actually one of the best accompanist to work with - better than Bernstein actually.


----------

