# The critics hated it but you like it.



## Merl

Do you have a recording that most critics have panned yet you really like or even adore it? Original quotes from the reviews would be nice but not essential. Nuff said.


----------



## bigshot

I like Karjan's orchestral Bach. Does that count?


----------



## Bulldog

bigshot said:


> I like Karjan's orchestral Bach. Does that count?


It counts in my book; I can't tolerate his Bach. However, I think that many non-purist critics have a warm spot for the combination. So, it doesn't really count; you can do better.


----------



## Granate

FTS said:


> The performances are quite good - I own 15 different box sets. However, as I was listening to the 8th with a score I forgot that the commentary notes that Klemperer cuts over 100 bars. I am appalled, to say the least. "Klemp" has been one of my favorite conductors for 50 years, but cutting 100+ bars is a sin which I will never forgive or forget. He should be ashamed.





Terry Barfoot said:


> It is the Eighth Symphony that raises the most doubts among these performances. It is a typically powerful and craggy performance, lacking the fluidity that is the hallmark of Günter Wand's masterly approach, for example with the North German Radio Symphony Orchestra, RCA/BMG CD 68047-2. That said, Klemperer always maintains the music's direction and symphonic integrity … until the finale, that is. Astonishingly for someone who knew, loved and understood Bruckner's music so well, Klemperer decided to make his own edition making cuts (bars 211-387 and 582-647) amounting to about seven minutes of music. They prove far from convincing.





Christopher Howell said:


> The Eighth, posthumously issued, aroused a lot of head-shaking. For the EMG Monthly Letter "It would have been kinder to the memory of Otto Klemperer not to have issued this recording. … the performance itself is so unutterably dreary, and blotted with downright bad ensemble, that it sounds almost as if the orchestra was trying the symphony through at sight, and at groping tempi, just to find out what it was like. Hearing this travesty, we remember with great sadness the magnificent performances Klemperer gave of this symphony when he was at his greatest before the war" (December, 1973). Edward Greenfield bent over backwards to speak kindly of this "glorious if eccentric example of Klemperer's art at the very end of his career" (Gramophone, December 1973) but his review is spattered with provisos all the same.
> 
> That said, I found the first movement curiously impressive. As with the Ninth, the orchestra spend the first paragraph working out what tempo they're going at. But they settle down sooner and, pace EMG, I thought the orchestra on better form than in the Ninth. The secondary material is affectingly phrased and Klemperer's slow basic tempo means it is accommodated without further slackening. It's a tragically gaunt ruin of a performance with a haunting day-after effect.
> 
> The Scherzo goes at a pace that might have been judged stately even if it had been entitled minuet rather than scherzo. With a slow, striding swing, it works better than I would have expected. All the same, there seems an almighty lot of it at this tempo. Klemperer's purpose becomes clear when he moves into the Trio at a related pulse. This is actually quite a good tempo for the Trio, though whether the Scherzo should be subjugated to it out of obeisance to an arithmetical pattern is another matter. Unfortunately, the Trio gets slower as it proceeds and attention wanes.
> 
> The slow movement is not intrinsically all that slow, but this, too, gets slower as it goes on. Instead of building inexorably it droops and wilts. Klemperer gets a shattering final climax. A pity the wagon had got so bogged down in the build-up to it. Likewise the closing threnody, with its numbly wandering violin line against a Mahlerian horn-chorale, is deeply affecting in itself, but would have been truly devastating if it had not come as an epilogue to nothing in particular.
> 
> The Finale opens at an unbelievably slow tread, yet with such a gorgeous panoply of brassy sounds as to hold out hopes that it may actually come off. Alas, it doesn't and things get very dreary indeed. And then there is the issue that most people know about this recording even if they haven't ever heard it - the whacking great cuts. While I am in principle wholly against hacking bits out of works of art, I can only say that, conducted like this, what's left is more than enough.


I'm one of the fans of this elegant and flowing interpretation of the Bruckner No.8. Maybe we can skip the Finale which I can stand and I find it pretty good. But I truly reccommend to listen to the first three movements


----------



## Granate

bigshot said:


> I like Karajan's orchestral Bach. Does that count?


Me too!.............


----------



## Taplow

It's usually the other way around for me. I often listen to recordings the critics rave about and think, "what a load of old toss". I can't think of anything in my collection that the critics have panned, but I do often prefer their second or third choices over their topmost recommendations.


----------



## Pugg

bigshot said:


> I like Karjan's orchestral Bach. Does that count?


Me too, just like his Handel.


----------



## Merl

Taplow said:


> It's usually the other way around for me. I often listen to recordings the critics rave about and think, "what a load of old toss". I can't think of anything in my collection that the critics have panned, but I do often prefer their second or third choices over their topmost recommendations.


The thread was gonna say "or vice-versa", at the end but I decided against it as it just would have been a load of moaning about overrated performances.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I'm not averse to Roger Norrington's Beethoven symphony cycle: idiosyncratic, eccentric, bogus, shallow - call it what you will but I'd never shun it just because it's been customary for my academic betters to deride it.

If I were to list the negative quotes ranging from the merely unfavourable to the out-and-out venomous with regards to this cycle then I could well be in the running for the longest post in TC history.


----------



## Merl

Karajan's 80's Beethoven cycle has had some terrible press over the years. Allmusic's review being the worst of the lot:

_"Is this the worst Beethoven cycle ever recorded? No, of course not: there have no doubt been recordings by second-rate conductors with third-rate orchestras on budget labels worse than this. But for a first-rate conductor with a first-rate orchestra on a full-price label, this 1984 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies by Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic on Deutsche Grammophon is arguably the worst ever recorded. That Karajan was a first-rate conductor who made many great recordings is inarguable. That his 1963 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic on DG is among the two or three greatest is debatable. But 20 years later, Karajan was so wholly and completely consumed by his quest for absolute tonal beauty that his interpretations had become enormous exercises in monumentalized narcissism. Worse yet, Karajan uses some of the hoariest tricks of conducting to achieve the appearance of profundity: he jumps the beat with the brass to enhance the excitement, he pushes the beat to create the illusion of momentum, he balances from the basses up to cushion the sound of his strings, and he blends the instruments until the individual identity of the players is subsumed into the person of the conductor. As beautiful as the results are -- and in the slow movement of the Ninth, they are ravishingly gorgeous -- they are an empty and a jealous beauty that never trusts to its own depths, but rather stays on the sensual surface. But even surface beauty is denied in Karajan's interpretations because the sound of these recordings is hard and harsh with brilliant sheen that is aurally blinding."_

Personally, I've always found that review downright nasty. True it's Karajan's 'worst' cycle for many but average Karajan/BPO was still better than many other accounts, for me. True, the original cycle has a strange balance with bright, glassy sound (typical of early digital recordings) but that was sorted in the remastered Gold Edition. True, he ramped up the excitement by jumping the beat, occasionally but he's not alone in doing that in Beethoven. Even so, the Eroica and 8th from that set are excellent and I also rather like the 9th (some of the playing is gorgeous). Yes, we know most of the rest is not as good as the 63 cycle but neither is the 77 cycle, IMO. Listening to the remastered version has really changed my opinion on these performances, too (I wasn't bowled over when I first heard them).


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Yo Yo Ma Cello Suites Inspired by Bach. I don't know what critics said but I've read other TC comments generally not favorable. I like it.

I like Neville Marriner and ASMF for almost any recording. I saw a review calling him a lightweight. Sorry, I like his conducting.


----------



## bigshot

I think that Heifetz was a very expressive and thoughtful performer, not a lifeless machine as I've heard him described. I like Stokowski's most wayward recordings of the Russians (Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky and Rimsky) and I think his embellishments of the arrangements are well chosen. I think Andre Previn was underrated- a better conductor than he was a jazz musician. I think Ormandy was a very fine conductor too. And I think Karajan's last recording of Beethoven's 3rd is his best performance of that work.


----------



## David Phillips

Sir Malcolm Sargent (Flash Harry) often got sniffy reviews from the critics but the recent Warner Icon box shows what a good conductor her could be. His discs of 'Messiah', 'Elijah' and 'The Dream of Gerontius' are very special, and his Sibelius, Dohnanyi, and other 20th century classics are fine too.


----------



## elgar's ghost

David Phillips said:


> Sir Malcolm Sargent (Flash Harry) often got sniffy reviews from the critics but the recent Warner Icon box shows what a good conductor her could be. His discs of 'Messiah', 'Elijah' and 'The Dream of Gerontius' are very special, and his Sibelius, Dohnanyi, and other 20th century classics are fine too.


Flash Harry's forte was conducting choral works - I think it was Beecham who went as far as to say that Sargent was the best choirmaster of his time and the best the UK had produced.


----------



## Heck148

bigshot said:


> I think that Heifetz was a very expressive and thoughtful performer, not a lifeless machine as I've heard him described..


for sure, wonderful artist....I also cringe when somebody claims that Toscanini or Reiner are cold-blooded technicians, time-beaters...what baloney...their music-making just overflows with passion, excitement and _espressivo_. technical, performance accuracy =/= unexpressive or cold performance....


----------



## Becca

My feelings about both Toscanini and Reiner can be summed up by an anecdote told by the Richard Mohr (?) the RCA recording producer from during a recording session of the Strauss Salome Dance. Mrs. Reiner was present and said to Mohr (approx.) could we get him to give a bit more 'schwung'? Mohr, somewhat reluctantly broached this to Reiner whose answer was a simple "No." I do not believe that music should be stretched to achieve an effect but there is more emotion, passion and excitement within the music than comes across in many of their recordings ... no matter how technically brilliant they were.


----------



## bigshot

There's more than one Toscanini. The rigid precision of his Beethoven is nothing like the fluid expressiveness of his Italian opera. I think he realized that the music should dictate the style.


----------



## Heck148

I don't find anything rigid or pedestrian in the conducting of Toscanini or Reiner...their performances are remarkable for their passion, fiery verve and vitality....the flexibility of phrasing, while maintaining ensemble accuracy never ceases to amaze me...
I've been listening to Reiner's "Elektra" "Salome" excerpts...amazing, the fiery passion, the performances literally trip with the "blood-vengeance" and "blood-lust" portrayed in the music. Not even Solti/VPO matches the violence and creepy perversion of Reiner's presentations....the recent Honeck/PittsSO disc, tho well-recorded, sounds pedestrian, almost flaccid in comparison.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I heard this on a radio broadcast some time back and really enjoyed it. So I bought a copy at full price, something unusual for me. Since then I see that reviwers generally hate it. Good, I generally dislike most critics.


----------



## Merl

Not exactly hated but Barenboim's Schubert cycle got largely negative press (especially from Gramophone)....
_
"...you are likely to become surfeited on an over-ripe sound and tempos that often verge on the lugubrious. Indeed, you may vow never to listen to big-band Schubert ever again-this was my response after reaching as far as the end of the Sixth Symphony."_

True it's big-boned Schubert with slower tempos but some of the playing, especially in the Unfinished, is lovely.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Everything I like in fact................


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Merl said:


> Not exactly hated but Barenboim's Schubert cycle got largely negative press (especially from Gramophone)....
> _
> "...you are likely to become surfeited on an over-ripe sound and tempos that often verge on the lugubrious. Indeed, you may vow never to listen to big-band Schubert ever again-this was my response after reaching as far as the end of the Sixth Symphony."_
> 
> True it's big-boned Schubert with slower tempos but some of the playing, especially in the Unfinished, is lovely.


Critics are often those who can't, sitting in judgement of those who do.


----------



## David Phillips

Constantin Silvestri's Tchaikovsky recordings invariably received tepid reviews in 'The Gramophone'. It's true he would sometimes evince strange quirks of rhythm and orchestral balance, but he had one trick I particularly liked. He would stay with acceptable tempi throughout the work until he arrived about halfway through the final movement, then suddenly he would become galvanised with madcap energy and race through to the end. He does this with Symphonies 4 and 5 - obviously not Symphony No.6! - and the Violin Concerto with Kogan. Very exciting.


----------



## haydnfan

Bruno Walter's Mahler 9 from 1938 is a "cd from hell" on Classics Today but one of my favorites. They also seem to attack anything conducted by Furtwangler, one of the greatest conductors in the history of recorded music. Also Haitink's Vaughan Williams symphony cycle is much maligned but I love it. Not as much as other sets, but I think there should be room for multiple interpretations of those symphonies.


----------



## JeffD

George Solti and the Chicago Symphony's Beethoven's 9th, is my favorite recording of the piece, and I discovered that not everyone agrees.  In fact there are some strong arguments against this.

I am so glad I don't enough to not like this recording, it really fills up my world.


----------



## bigshot

haydnfan said:


> Bruno Walter's Mahler 9 from 1938 is a "cd from hell" on Classics Today but one of my favorites.


It starts out a little scrappy, but by the end it's amazing.


----------



## Merl

JeffD said:


> George Solti and the Chicago Symphony's Beethoven's 9th, is my favorite recording of the piece, and I discovered that not everyone agrees.  In fact there are some strong arguments against this.
> 
> I am so glad I don't enough to not like this recording, it really fills up my world.


Totally agree. It's a superb account and one of the great LvB 9ths for me. Exciting, pulsing and fiery. I love it too. The whole cycle is very good (great 3rd too).


----------



## Guest

Critics have been rather unkind to these two Dudamel recordings. While not my favorite performances, I do like them.


----------



## Mal

But is there a piece you like that *all* the critics have panned? That's all the penguins, gramophoners, rough types, Amazonians, and classical talkers... Come on admit to be being out on a limb with no support. There's always some cloth eared idiot who will have a go at Heifetz, Karajan, or Marriner to try and make a name for himself, so liking them is not being controversial, lots of "respected" critics like much of their work. Trust your judgement, tell us what you like that no one else likes... if you dare...


----------



## DavidA

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Critics are often those who can't, sitting in judgement of those who do.


Absolutely. And as they are often failed musicians themselves the one thing they can't stand is success! :lol:


----------



## Pugg

Kontrapunctus said:


> Critics have been rather unkind to these two Dudamel recordings. While not my favorite performances, I do like them.


The same with the Mussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition, I don't care either, I like it.


----------



## Triplets

Granate said:


> I'm one of the fans of this elegant and flowing interpretation of the Bruckner No.8. Maybe we can skip the Finale which I can stand and I find it pretty good. But I truly reccommend to listen to the first three movements


I'm with you. I think most Bruckner Symphonies can stand major cuts in their finales


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I recently pick up a 2 disc set of Grieg piano sonata and some other works by other composers. Then looked at a professional review on it. The critic slammed the Grieg sonata as "hackneyed" not the performance but the work. I don't know what they were talking about. I quite enjoyed it.


----------



## Merl

I picked the Norrington Mahler reordings up quite a while ago but hadn't really listened to them so I plonked Symphony 1 on the car USB. I expected it to be a total car crash after David Hurwitz absolutely slated the First Symphony on release (Artistic:3 Sound:7) and all other subsequent releases. Here's what he said about the First:

_"On evidence here, Roger Norrington has no business conducting this music: everything is light, underplayed, and lacking conviction. The scherzo has none of the rustic character the music requires. Cellos and basses don't bite. Norrington races through the funeral march at a characterless jog, and the brass playing in the finale is markedly below par. I can't recall a final peroration so lacking in style, grandeur, or bravura.........The inclusion of Blumine in its original second position only makes listening one movement duller than it otherwise would have been, and the sonics are nothing special. In short, like so much of Norrington's work, this is a farce. Why do they put up with him in Stuttgart? And why does Hänssler support his interpretive nonsense when they have a stunning Mahler cycle from Michael Gielen already available? "_

I got around to listening to it today and it's not what I expected. I like it! Yeah, he's right about a few things - I could do without the inclusion of the slightly dull Blumine movement, there' a bit of dodgy brass ensemble in the finale and it lacks a bit of 'bite'. However, it is a good account. Not in the league of my favourites but far better than some terrible Mahler Firsts I own (Solti, Kegel - ugh!!). Yeah Norrington's insistence on rubato-less performance can be off-putting to some but there are moments in this performance where I feel it helps the music breathe. I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks of Norrington's Mahler. I usually find Hurwitz's reviews are fairly close to my own views but on this occasion (and plenty of others) he's showing blatant animosity towards Norrington. I've yet to hear all his cycle but the 9th got a similarly dismissive review in a whole essay titled 'Norrington's Stupid Mahler Ninth:

_"The fact that a few contemporary artists dislike vibrato, whether through genuine artistic conviction or opportunism, does not give them license to rewrite musical history to validate their particular prejudice. For hundreds of years composers have prescribed precise degrees of expressive intensity through musical notation, and they have assumed that well‐trained players would bring every tool of their art to bear in performance. There is absolutely no justification for excluding the frequent use of vibrato from the orchestral string player's repertoire when called for, and no evidence that this ever happened in the real world. The most credible sources all point to continuity of performance practice over time. Anything else is rank speculation fortified by third rate scholarship and the artist's need to stand out from the crowd. It's that simple."_

And on Norrington's account of the 2nd:

_"I still hope, if only for the sake of the talented Stuttgart players, that someday they will summon up sufficient nerve to tell the management that either this tiresome quack has to go or they will. It may be bad PR, and it might spell the end of what little notoriety they now enjoy in the classical music world, but like kicking a bad habit it can only serve them well in the long run. Don't they realize how foolish Norrington is making them look?"_

Your thoughts?


----------



## Becca

Merl said:


> Your thoughts?


My thoughts are quite simply that when come across a review by Hurwitz, I immediately discount it and go elsewhere. I don't expect to agree with all critics but I do expect to have some understanding of their likes, dislikes and expectations but all I get from Hurwitz seems this type of denigration.


----------



## Bulldog

Hurwitz hates Norrington with a strong passion; he also hates anything coming close to HIP.


----------



## elgar's ghost

^
^

He's not the only one to have it in for Norrington - have you read any of Bernard Michael O'Hanlan's right royal trashings on Amazon? He's as every bit as venomous as Hurwitz but with a sense of humour which I have to say I find quite entertaining.


----------



## Art Rock

Haitinks Bruckner 9. It was one of the lowest scoring in a 50+ analysis of recordings of this work on TC a few months ago, receiving a verdict "garbage" or something like that. I love it.


----------



## jegreenwood

Becca said:


> My thoughts are quite simply that when come across a review by Hurwitz, I immediately discount it and go elsewhere. I don't expect to agree with all critics but I do expect to have some understanding of their likes, dislikes and expectations but all I get from Hurwitz seems this type of denigration.


In anticipation of delivery of the new Herreweghe box, I scanned ClassicsToday's reviews of his recordings. They LOVE his Bach but despise his forays into the romantic repertoire. It's pretty consistent. Although my limited exposure to late 19th century HIP has left me less than enthusiastic, I look forward to assessing the performances for myself.


----------



## Merl

I like some of Herreweghe's recordings, especially his Schumann cycle, and that got a mixed bag of reviews (a 'marmite' set) yet his Beethoven was often praised highly and yet I find it all a bit bland and underpowered in hindsight (although superbly recorded).


----------



## Granate

Art Rock said:


> Haitink's Bruckner 9. It was one of the lowest scoring *in a 50+ analysis of recordings of this work on TC a few months ago,* receiving a verdict "garbage" or something like that. I love it.


It was me :devil:









Bruckner
_*Symphony No.9 in D minor*_
1894 Original Version, Ed. Nowak
Concertgebouworkest Amsterdam
*Bernard Haitink
Philips (1965/2005 Reissue Edition)*

_Disappointing instrumentation, both with a plain Feierlich and an unmoving Scherzo with the strings sounding like HIP. The Adagio is better performed to save the day._
*F*

And you consider me a serious professional critic? How complimentary of you! :kiss:


----------



## Art Rock

Well, that's not the version I have (mine is from 1981, same orchestra, same director, same label). So all's well. :tiphat:


----------



## Merl

No reviews of this one online apart from a local American reviewer who called it 'Amateurish and odd'. He must have had his head up his bottom, or was listening to something else, as this recording is far from any of these adjectives. If you're gonna bash Dudamel at least choose one of his worst recordings. He picked the wrong one, this time. What a pratt!


----------



## Becca

If David Hurwitz trashed it, there are even odds that I will like it!


----------



## elgar's ghost

Becca said:


> If David Hurwitz trashed it, there are even odds that I will like it!


That sounds like me after reading some Robert Christgau reviews of 70s rock albums.


----------



## Granate

Merl said:


> No reviews of this one online apart from a local American reviewer who called it 'Amateurish and odd'. He must have had his head up his bottom, or was listening to something else, as this recording is far from any of these adjectives. If you're gonna bash Dudamel at least choose one of his worst recordings. He picked the wrong one, this time. What a pratt!


I'm usually wondering what is it that made Dudamel a successful conductor. He is the most talked-about figure in the Spanish-speaking CM world (because Barenboim is too "outdated", síiii yaaa), yet recordings like the Zarathustra make me completely run away from him. His style of conducting (on sight) is not the most pleasing I could think of...

But then Bruckner happened:









Bruckner
_*Symphony No.9 in D minor*_ Live recording
1894 Original Version, Ed. Nowak
Göteborgs Symfoniker
*Gustavo Dudamel
Deutsche Grammophon (2011)*

_Promising recording debut by Dudamel that shows amazing control over the Sherzo and gets to play intensily in the Feierlich. The Adagio is fine._
*C+*


----------



## Merl

Talking of Bruckner this recording of Bruckner's 8th by Thielemann and the Dresden Staatskapelle got mainly negative (with a few exceptions) reviews yet I've been listening to it and think it's very good, indeed. It was called "unnecessary" and "unconvincing" by a few classical reviewers but I dont hear what they hear. I hear measured movements, powerfully conducted and beautifully played and recorded. The main beef of the negative remarks were that the reviwer thought it was going to be epic. What do you think, Granate?


----------



## Granate

I absolutely agree with you Merl. *I want to listen to the Thielemann Bruckner cycle badly.* But I did have a bad reaction to his recent release of B4 for Profil. Dull three first movements.

And by the way. What happened to the designer that never found the proper HQ picture for the digital cover? The phisical release has no image cropping problem.


----------



## bigshot

I think the current crop of conductors are more convincing in modern repertoire, not the old warhorses that were nailed in the 50s through 70s.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I read exactly one published review which basically said Bruch's Symphonies are nice if done right, but I got the impression thhe reviewer didnt think much of them. I also saw some user reviews criticizing Bruch more directly as a symphonist.

Guess I don't know whatever the critics know. I like these symphonies.


----------



## Merl

Oldhoosierdude said:


> View attachment 101218
> 
> 
> I read exactly one published review which basically said Bruch's Symphonies are nice if done right, but I got the impression thhe reviewer didnt think much of them. I also saw some user reviews criticizing Bruch more directly as a symphonist.
> 
> Guess I don't know whatever the critics know. I like these symphonies.


I've read a few reviews of the Masur Bruch symphony recordings and I concur that the mainstay of each review is criticism of the symphonies with very little said about the performances. I have that set and like it too.


----------



## staxomega

Mal said:


> But is there a piece you like that *all* the critics have panned? That's all the penguins, gramophoners, rough types, Amazonians, and classical talkers... Come on admit to be being out on a limb with no support. There's always some cloth eared idiot who will have a go at Heifetz, Karajan, or Marriner to try and make a name for himself, so liking them is not being controversial, lots of "respected" critics like much of their work. Trust your judgement, tell us what you like that no one else likes... if you dare...


I think it will be difficult to find consensus among critics unless performances are truly disastrous.

The one that springs to mind is several critics panning Alfred Cortot's playing, one German reviewer even going as far to call him an idiot. Jed Distler was also not a fan but was at least he was cordial about his views.

"Cortot's rubato was idiosyncratic and impossible to copy, yet logical and controlled, abetted by bold melodic projection. His phrasing was full of heart-stopping tenutos, attention-grabbing accents, and dynamic nuances that propelled the music forward and up. At his best, Cortot's tempos always struck me as natural and inevitable - never too fast or too slow."

"Cortot's liberal attitude toward textual fidelity bordered on the cavalier. Like many pianists of his era, Cortot loved to search out inner voices (real or implied), spice up bass lines with added octaves or filled out chords, and break the hands by playing the left before the right. However anachronistic these devices might have been, Cortot channeled them toward specific coloristic and expressive ends, although they became increasingly more pronounced, defiant, and craggy as the pianist aged and his technique waned."

Now having said that I think Cortot's playing of Schumann is some of the best ever recorded. Not really an uncommon opinion as many people I trust share it as well... just none of them are critics/reviewers.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Karajan's 80's Beethoven cycle has had some terrible press over the years. Allmusic's review being the worst of the lot:
> 
> _"Is this the worst Beethoven cycle ever recorded? No, of course not: there have no doubt been recordings by second-rate conductors with third-rate orchestras on budget labels worse than this. But for a first-rate conductor with a first-rate orchestra on a full-price label, this 1984 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies by Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic on Deutsche Grammophon is arguably the worst ever recorded. That Karajan was a first-rate conductor who made many great recordings is inarguable. That his 1963 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic on DG is among the two or three greatest is debatable. But 20 years later, Karajan was so wholly and completely consumed by his quest for absolute tonal beauty that his interpretations had become enormous exercises in monumentalized narcissism. Worse yet, Karajan uses some of the hoariest tricks of conducting to achieve the appearance of profundity: he jumps the beat with the brass to enhance the excitement, he pushes the beat to create the illusion of momentum, he balances from the basses up to cushion the sound of his strings, and he blends the instruments until the individual identity of the players is subsumed into the person of the conductor. As beautiful as the results are -- and in the slow movement of the Ninth, they are ravishingly gorgeous -- they are an empty and a jealous beauty that never trusts to its own depths, but rather stays on the sensual surface. But even surface beauty is denied in Karajan's interpretations because the sound of these recordings is hard and harsh with brilliant sheen that is aurally blinding."_
> 
> Personally, I've always found that review downright nasty. True it's Karajan's 'worst' cycle for many but average Karajan/BPO was still better than many other accounts, for me. True, the original cycle has a strange balance with bright, glassy sound (typical of early digital recordings) but that was sorted in the remastered Gold Edition. True, he ramped up the excitement by jumping the beat, occasionally but he's not alone in doing that in Beethoven. Even so, the Eroica and 8th from that set are excellent and I also rather like the 9th (some of the playing is gorgeous). Yes, we know most of the rest is not as good as the 63 cycle but neither is the 77 cycle, IMO. Listening to the remastered version has really changed my opinion on these performances, too (I wasn't bowled over when I first heard them).


The problem with Karajan's last cycle of LvB was that he had already done three superb cycles and that the new accounts were unnecessary. Also the digital sound was no improvement. But by that time Karajan was good sport for the critics, most of whom are failures of some sort and hate success on the level Karajan had it. (They sniped at Bernstein as well until he died.) In the 1982 edition the Eroica is superb. I have it in the remastered edition. The rest we can take or leave as he had done them better before. But there was still some great music making.


----------



## billeames

Critics hated Handel Messiah 1985 Davis BRSO Philips. I like it. 
lukewarm and ignored: Beethoven Symphonies Isserstedt. Decca 2001 CD's OOP. 
lukewarm: Mahler Symphonies Haitink Berlin Philips. OOP.


----------



## Konsgaard

I agree about Karajan's digital remake of the Eroica. Definitely his best!


----------



## Guest

Critics have not been kind to Aimard's Bach recordings (too intellectual), but I like them.



















My signature comes in to play here!


----------



## Rmathuln

Bernstein's Carmen, especially in the new Pentatone digital master.


----------



## Lionheart

Here's one that received mixed reviews. Some people loved it, other people couldn't dispense with their per-consieved notions of how Bach is supposed to sound:










Yet it's a masterpiece, it's a perfect illustration of how much clarity and drama is lost in big orchestrations.
Don't get me wrong, I love the other legendary HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Jochem, Koopman, Herreweghe etc.) but this one is simply special.


----------



## Lionheart

Lionheart said:


> Here's one that received mixed reviews. Some people loved it, other people couldn't dispense with their per-consieved notions of how Bach is supposed to sound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet it's a masterpiece, it's a perfect illustration of how much clarity and drama is lost in big orchestrations.
> Don't get me wrong, I love the other legendary HIP performances (Harnoncourt, Jochem, Koopman, Herreweghe etc.) but this one is simply special.


I was referring to the McGreesh Mattheus passion, but I can't seem to post a picture.


----------



## Pugg

Rmathuln said:


> Bernstein's Carmen, especially in the new Pentatone digital master.


Very daring, I like it also, even on good old vinyl.


----------



## Biffo

billeames said:


> Critics hated Handel Messiah 1985 Davis BRSO Philips. I like it.
> lukewarm and ignored: Beethoven Symphonies Isserstedt. Decca 2001 CD's OOP.
> lukewarm: Mahler Symphonies Haitink Berlin Philips. OOP.


I have Davis' earlier Messiah with the LSO and it is probably my favourite version; I don't recall reading anything about his later one but that doesn't signify anything.

Schmidt-Isserstedt's Beethoven cycle was highly praised on its first issue in 1970. I was told it was the cycle to have - one week after I had bought Jochum/Concertgebouw. Over the years the S-I cycle seemed to fade from view.

I got to know Mahler 1-4 from Haitink's Concertgebouw recordings and over the years assembled a complete cycle. I bought his BPO recording of the 1st symphony and couldn't understand its poor critical reception. I have never tried any of his other Berlin Mahler.


----------



## Guest

Merl said:


> Talking of Bruckner this recording of Bruckner's 8th by Thielemann and the Dresden Staatskapelle got mainly negative (with a few exceptions) reviews yet I've been listening to it and think it's very good, indeed. It was called "unnecessary" and "unconvincing" by a few classical reviewers but I dont hear what they hear. I hear measured movements, powerfully conducted and beautifully played and recorded. The main beef of the negative remarks were that the reviwer thought it was going to be epic. What do you think, Granate?


This and Karajan's from the 70s are my favorite performances.


----------



## BachIsBest

Kontrapunctus said:


> Critics have not been kind to Aimard's Bach recordings (too intellectual), but I like them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My signature comes in to play here!


I don't know about the first recording but that second recording got a glowing gramophone review complete with a spot on their top 50 recommended Bach recordings. The only piano version the art of fugue in fact.


----------



## fjf

OK, I'll play. Not only critics, but many people here dislike him. I like Glenn Gould. And it gets worst: I like not only his Bach.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

As I posted in another thread, this one was panned by some critics although some did like it. It didn't get a lot of love with listeners reviews. I like it however.


----------



## Merl

Oldhoosierdude said:


> As I posted in another thread, this one was panned by some critics although some did like it. It didn't get a lot of love with listeners reviews. I like it however.
> View attachment 103165


I Iike it too. Nott's Mahler cycle had mixed reviews by the critics but consumers were far more negative. This cycle doesn't get a lot of love on here or elsewhere.


----------



## Granate

Merl said:


> I Iike it too. Nott's Mahler cycle had mixed reviews by the critics but consumers were far more negative. This cycle doesn't get a lot of love on here or elsewhere.


Really? But I love it! Especially No.9. It has the best SQ I've ever experienced in a Mahler cycle, although the latest BR recordings stand closer or even better.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

For many critics there is only Colin Davis for Fantastique. This one is generally not liked but I like it better than the Dutoit recording I have (I don't have Davis but have heard it.) .


----------



## DavidA

Mal said:


> But is there a piece you like that *all* the critics have panned? That's all the penguins, gramophoners, rough types, Amazonians, and classical talkers... Come on admit to be being out on a limb with no support. There's always some cloth eared idiot who will have a go at Heifetz, Karajan, or Marriner to try and make a name for himself, so liking them is not being controversial, lots of "respected" critics like much of their work. Trust your judgement, tell us what you like that no one else likes... if you dare...


Interesting that Karajan and C Kleiber had a mutual admiration society. Now I would sooner take Kleiber's word about HvK's performances (and vice versa) than some cloth-eared critic. Many years ago one of Decca's recordings was panned by a critic for having 'no bass'. John Culshaw wasso annoyed he went to see the guy and found he had his bass turned right down and his treble up. When Culshaw adjusted the player, the critic was amazed!


----------



## DavidA

One inverse of the OP was the Joyce Hatto scandal. Some of the performances the critics praised to the skies turned out to be performances they had been sniffy about when they'd formerly appeared, under the real artist's name. There were some red faces to be sure. Some still couldn't see the contradiction in a sick, frail old lady giving miraculous performances of works she'd never previously mastered.


----------



## DavidA

Merl said:


> Karajan's 80's Beethoven cycle has had some terrible press over the years. Allmusic's review being the worst of the lot:
> 
> _"Is this the worst Beethoven cycle ever recorded? No, of course not: there have no doubt been recordings by second-rate conductors with third-rate orchestras on budget labels worse than this. But for a first-rate conductor with a first-rate orchestra on a full-price label, this 1984 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies by Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic on Deutsche Grammophon is arguably the worst ever recorded. That Karajan was a first-rate conductor who made many great recordings is inarguable. That his 1963 cycle of the Beethoven symphonies with the Berlin Philharmonic on DG is among the two or three greatest is debatable. But 20 years later, Karajan was so wholly and completely consumed by his quest for absolute tonal beauty that his interpretations had become enormous exercises in monumentalized narcissism. Worse yet, Karajan uses some of the hoariest tricks of conducting to achieve the appearance of profundity: he jumps the beat with the brass to enhance the excitement, he pushes the beat to create the illusion of momentum, he balances from the basses up to cushion the sound of his strings, and he blends the instruments until the individual identity of the players is subsumed into the person of the conductor. As beautiful as the results are -- and in the slow movement of the Ninth, they are ravishingly gorgeous -- they are an empty and a jealous beauty that never trusts to its own depths, but rather stays on the sensual surface. But even surface beauty is denied in Karajan's interpretations because the sound of these recordings is hard and harsh with brilliant sheen that is aurally blinding."_
> 
> Personally, I've always found that review downright nasty. True it's Karajan's 'worst' cycle for many but average Karajan/BPO was still better than many other accounts, for me. True, the original cycle has a strange balance with bright, glassy sound (typical of early digital recordings) but that was sorted in the remastered Gold Edition. True, he ramped up the excitement by jumping the beat, occasionally but he's not alone in doing that in Beethoven. Even so, the Eroica and 8th from that set are excellent and I also rather like the 9th (some of the playing is gorgeous). Yes, we know most of the rest is not as good as the 63 cycle but neither is the 77 cycle, IMO. Listening to the remastered version has really changed my opinion on these performances, too (I wasn't bowled over when I first heard them).


 That review was probably written before the guy even heard them, at least in his mind. It incorporates all the tired old nonsense written about HvK by peopke with a grudge against success. There wasn't a great enthusiasm for the cycle when it came out mainly because of the sound and also because Karajan's earlier accounts were generally superior. But to call it the worst cycle ever is just to expose your own ignorance . Whoever the critic was they are just ignorant and probably unmusical too. I cannot imagine why any editor allowed this tripe to be published.


----------



## WildThing

Oldhoosierdude said:


> As I posted in another thread, this one was panned by some critics although some did like it. It didn't get a lot of love with listeners reviews. I like it however.
> View attachment 103165


Interesting. I'll have to check it out. How does his interpretation stack up against other modern M9s by the likes of Riccardo Chailly, Alan Gilbert and Iván Fischer? I think those are the three most recent I know.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

WildThing said:


> Interesting. I'll have to check it out. How does his interpretation stack up against other modern M9s by the likes of Riccardo Chailly, Alan Gilbert and Iván Fischer? I think those are the three most recent I know.


Not sure on those. I also have Boulez account I also like, but I like Boulez for most things.


----------



## San Antone

Bernstein's _Mass_


----------



## hpowders

Some critics hated the complete Haydn string quartets by the Auyrn Quartet. I find them to be a model of clarity and taste. FINALLY, a modern group not playing Haydn with intrusive anachronistic romantic vibrato. Their intonation too is impeccable. Screw the critics!


----------



## Merl

I cant say that ALL the critics hated this one but reviews were very polarized. Ive listened a few times and although i dont love it, its such a refreshing take on this old warhorse that i do enjoy it. If you havent heard it you should just to see what you think. My biggest negative is the pretentious cover and liner notes.


----------

