# A Discussion of Living Conductors



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I’ll open this up to ANY living conductors, but I’m particularly curious what people’s thoughts are on those at the helm of (roughly) the top fifty orchestras. Who have you seen live? What were your thoughts? Of the rising generation, who stands out to you? Which recordings do you have by today’s conductors?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Good topic - ottomh -

I've heard some fine performances by Salonen, Nelsons, Van Zweeden, Bychkov, Muti, Oramo to name just a few...

Salonen, I've come to realize, is really a fine conductor, first rate - probably my favorite living....he did outstanding concerts with Chicago - Rite of Spring, Petrushka, and a great Mahler Sym #9 - best I've heard live [Abbado, Levine];

Nelsons has done some excellent work with Boston - in particluar a terrific Mahler Sym #6, Shostakovich 4 and 7...
Sakari Oramo conducted a superb Prokofieff Sym #6 with Boston...really excellent..Bychkov and Van Zweeden delivered stirring renditions of Shostakovich, Bruckner 8s [Bychkov] and Shost and Prokofieff 5s [VZ].
Levine conducted some excellent concerts with Boston, really got things going after the Ozawa doldrums...
one from whom I've heard some terrific recordings, but no live concerts - James Conlon.

one great conductor I never got to hear live - Gennadi Rozhd'sky - one of the best of his generation for sure....I've lots of his recordings, not a poor one in the bunch..
I got to hear Claudio Abbado several times live before he died...outstanding


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Five come to mind for various reasons...

Daniel Harding - A low-key but impressive conductor ... when he isn't flying commercial aircraft! Some of his Mahler and Strauss has been very good. Check out his Alpensinfonie with the Saito Kinen orchestra.

Edward Gardner - I hadn't thought much about him until the last year but my impression has been getting much more positive.

Santtu-Matias Rouvali - I have been very impressed with all that I've seen him do, both video and recordings. It will be interesting when he gets to the Philharmonia. He is going to be one of the really good ones.

Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla - Another who I think will be one of the really good conductors as she gains experience and maturity.

Rafael Payare - He just started as music director of the San Diego Symphony after a period with the Ulster Orchestra. I don't have any opinion of him so far but will be watching and listening.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I talked to one professional young conductor who said that Salonen was all brain and no heart, but my experience has been different. I saw him conduct the Helsinki Conservatory Orchestra doing Sibelius 5 in Carnegie Hall. It was one of those once in a lifetime concerts. The young group played with so much passion and Salonen brought out musical details with such conviction. It was a super moving performance for me. I could barely breathe during the last hammer-stroke chords at the end.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Another one that really intrigued me is Marin Alsop. Her technique is precise, clear, and she is super musical. Listen to her recording of Brahms 3 with the London Philharmonic. It's wonderful!

Here's a sample of her guiding the Peabody Orchestra on Dvorak 9


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Haven't heard her, but Alsop does a terrific interview with NPR's Scott Simon about once a year.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Such a big topic. I've seen (heard) quite a few. Some exceptional, some mediocre.

Runnicles: tremendous talent. Can really excite the orchestra and bring a lot of energy to a concert.
Falletta: Defies all convention. Skilled, dramatic, loves music. Terrific Mahler 5th. The only guitar playing conductor I've heard.
Salonen: very clinical, but gets great results. A Mahler 7th in LA still rings in the ears.
Muti: if any living conductor has a claim to being a legend, it's Muti. Stunning conductor in a vast repertoire.
Litton: a truly great conductor of Romantic and modern music. Somehow has fallen by the wayside. Every time I've heard him I'm bowled over by his intelligence and feel for the music, be it a symphony by Tchaikovsky or Schmidt. Great, great talent.
Lintu: I first heard him 20 years ago when he was just getting started. Obvious then that he had real potential and it's coming true. Terrific conductor and many 20th c composers are in good hands.
Bychkov: marvelous conductor, especially in the late romantic and Russian literature.
Jose Luis Gomez: in Tucson now, a product of El Systema in Venezuela and worked in Germany for a while. Very exciting conductor who imparts a rhythmic flow to everything that just seems perfect. Really connects with the orchestra and the community. Not afraid of obscure music. The Glazunov 4th he did was just sensational. And he likes to program music from South of the Border - and that's good.
Dudamel - I don't understand the hype around him. The WORST Mahler 1st I've ever heard. He's mediocre - at best - in the standard German/Austrian repertoire. He's done some good Mahler on CD, but the Nutcracker was dreadful. I have desire to hear him again in concert or on CD.

And there are many more, but it's late. But here's the real thing: I've been fortunate enough to hear live conductors like Mehta, Bernstein, Karajan, Previn, Jarvi, Maazel, Abbado, Tennstedt, Solti, Svetlanov, Guilini, Ozawa, Dorati, Menuhin, Ormandy, Rostropovich, and others. Those older guys has something else going for them, a charisma, a presence that seems to be missing from most of the conductors today. Maybe it was their training - in the opera house - or even a lack of training: they learned from having role models. And they worked in a time when classical music was a more important part of our society and when conductors had an almost god like aura. Given the times we're in, younger conductors will never have that opportunity. I want to add that too often we celebrate the conductor when really it's the composer and the music that deserves our accolades. And, a conductor doesn't need to be a world-famous maestro to make great music. The two concerts I've been to that are most imprinted in my brain, the most exciting concerts I've ever been to weren't conducted by world famous stars. 40 years ago I heard Sarah Caldwell (from the Boston Opera) give a Brahms 2nd that was utterly hair raising - I will never forget that coda! Thrilling doesn't begin to explain it. Put the Bernstein/VPO concert I heard to shame. Then there was a Mahler 6th with George Hanson in Tucson. They played the daylights out of the thing and wrung every ounce of emotion imaginable. He's still alive and I hope he's still conducting.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*A Discussion of Living Conductors *

I don't have much to add here except to say: I suspect living conductors do a much better job directing an orchestra than do dead conductors.

Any disagreements?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> And they worked in a time when classical music was a more important part of our society


But was it though? Referring to the US here, was classical music actually a more important part of our society in the 40s and 50s? It seems to me that in those days, Frank Sinatra, big bands, Elvis and the Beatles were "more important". Or is it that we are just so awash now with too much of everything available on demand? You could also say movies/pop music/baseball meant so much more to society then. In those days, the only way you could hear these orchestras with their conductors was getting an LP, listening for the limited opportunities to catch them on the radio, or going to a concert hall in person. Now it's streaming services/YT for whatever orchestra and conductor you want, living or dead.

No, there aren't any really "charismatic" conductors anymore, or maybe there are and the mindset and attention span isn't there anymore to catch it. I do think that role of "the conductor" has been inflated a little bit historically.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

SONNET CLV said:


> *A Discussion of Living Conductors *
> 
> I don't have much to add here except to say: I suspect living conductors do a much better job directing an orchestra than do dead conductors.
> 
> Any disagreements?


Potentially. If today I play a recording of a performance directed by a conductor of yesteryear who has shuffled off this mortal coil since the recording was made, does that still count as "directing" rather than "directed" (after all, I'm experiencing the performance in real time)? If so, then I would indeed disagree. Some of my absolute favourites, most notably (and sadly) Carlos Kleiber, are no longer with us.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

The active conductors that I find interesting would be:

Kirill Petrenko, the new BPO chief, with huge promises for the future
Vladimir Jurowski, the LPO chief with great insights in music and a lot of focus during live concerts
Tughan Sokhiev, a upcoming inspiring Russian conductor 
Yannick Nezet Seguin, already arrived, very energetic and fresh conducting style
Gustavo Gimeno, former RCO percussionist, someone to watch, very bright and clear style
Daniele Gatti, the #metoo dismissed RCO chief, who did some great things during his Amsterdam stay, like Falstaff, Salome, very interesting Mahler and Wagner, 2nd Viennese school, too bad it ended like this
Andriss Nelsons, already well arrived and curious if he can keep his act together. His last Beethoven cycle with VPO on DG was very uninspired 
Gianandrea Noseda, a reliable force in more complex pieces, like Liszt and when I heard him conduct the War Requiem
Lahav Shani, the new star in Rotterdam after Yannick Nezet Seguin left to New York. Also a good pianist who conducts from the piano

Ivan Fischer, unconventional and always a fresh approach, also a very good Mahler cycle on record 
Kent Nagano, a underrated conductor in the 20th-21st century repertoire, never lets you down 
Esa Peka Salonen, I would sure hope to hear him live once, his recordings are worthwile
Myung Whun Chung, just recently did I hear him conduct Mahler 9 live and it was very impressive

Herbert Blomstedt, the grand old man who still gets better every year, hopefully some more years for him to go

Famous less-interesting conductors:
Simon Rattle
Riccardo Muti
Jaap van Zweden


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

What about "The Dude", Gustavo Dudamel? Haven't seen his name come up yet on this thread.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

> NLAdriaan Herbert Blomstedt, the grand old man who still gets better every year, hopefully some more years for him to go


Herbert Blomstedt, in an engaging conversation with Alan Gilbert, announced that he has committed to record two sets of symphonies with the Leipzig Gewandhaus orchestra - the nine symphonies of Schubert and Franz Berwald's four. The two composers, he explains, were born within the same year.

On his time in lock down, he says, 'I've been studying new scores that I'm planning to perform next season.':tiphat:


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Arturo Tamayo is a most important conductor, in my estimation.

I've read about Tamayo correcting a score by Xenakis because the publisher of the work did not understand the composer's intent.
The formally published manuscript contained errors and Tamayo revised/edited the opus prior to recording it for the Timpani label.

Now I ask: how many living conductors can satisfactorily render an orchestral composition written by Iannis Xenakis?
Out of those conductors, how many would notice if there is anything amiss?
Would/could anybody else besides Tamayo edit the material according to a composer's initial manuscript and/or sketches?

This is something for discussion, eh?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

In my experience, the only prominent living conductors I've heard that have the highly personal, individualized styles of the old masters are Gergiev, Rattle, and maybe Barenboim. I'm really hoping that this newest generation of "up-and-comers" will bring some personality to the table and not just "score-regurgitating." This video of Gergiev conducting the Firebird is one of the most entertaining on YouTube, and I shouldn't have to explain why if you watch the very end:


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2020)

Coach G said:


> What about "The Dude", Gustavo Dudamel? Haven't seen his name come up yet on this thread.


See #7.

It's a peculiar business, choosing conductors - if we're talking about watching them live. I tend to like those that don't have quite such idiosyncratic body language, but do get involved.

Of those I've seen live or on TV, I've enjoyed

Nelsons with the CBSO
Lintu with the Finnish Radio
Jurowski with the London Phil
Thomas Sondergard with the BBC NOW
Rattle with the BPO
Nezet Seguin with the Rotterdam
Haitink with the RAC
Mirga Gražinytė-Tyla with the CBSO
Dausgaard with the RSPO

Less keen on Salonen, Bychkov, Runnicles


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

20centrfuge said:


> Another one that really intrigued me is Marin Alsop. Her technique is precise, clear, and she is super musical. Listen to her recording of Brahms 3 with the London Philharmonic. It's wonderful!


I believe that Alsop trained under Bernstein.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

What about Vasily Petrenko? One of my favourite conductors


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I forgot to mention Barenboim, Blomstedt and Haitink....the latter two are certainly getting up there in years, but I've heard fine concerts from them...same with Barenboim...I've heard some very excellent Mahler(7), Bruckner (8) sand Wagner from him....


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I like Herreweghe and Gardiner.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

There's been quite a bit of positive fuss about the young Czech conductor Jakub Hrůša. I haven't heard him live, gut the recordings I have heard him in are exceptionally good.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Gianandrea Noseda is doing a great job with the National Symphony. I have attended several concerts with him conducting. He did a fantastic job with the _War Requiem_.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

No one mentioned Honeck yet? The guy is doing an amazing job in Pittsburgh. Some of those Reference recordings are brilliant (Strauss, Beethoven, Dvorak). The Fischers, Simone Young and Alsop have made some great stuff too. As someone has already said, Alsop's Brahms cycle is outstanding.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I second the positive comments about Donald Runnicles, Tugan Sokhiev, Andris Nelsons and Kirill Petrenko. Of others, Tony Pappano is definitely good in opera, I haven't yet formed an opinion of him outside that. Mark Elder has done some brilliant work with the Halle with some really good recordings. Of course not all of them are consistently top drawer, but the average is very good. I won't go into those with whom I am am much less enamored :lol:


----------



## DaddyGeorge (Mar 16, 2020)

There are many of them: Gardiner, Jacobs, Savall, Nelsons, Suzuki, Norrington, Goodman, Fischer, Harding, Järvi, Layton, Christophers, Bychkov,... But I must especially mention Jakub Hrůša, his Dvořák, Brahms, Martinů, Smetana, Suk are among the best recording I've heard.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Muti is still alive, and rightly a legend. I've heard him live with Philadelphia and Chicago numerous times. Among great things he's done: he's added⁠-yes, added, _not_ ⁠at the expense of something else⁠-an extraordinary Italianate warmth in the strings. Several recent (pre-pandemic) performances I heard with Chicago, yes, _Chicago_ it was the strings that blew me away. The brass are just as good, as are the woodwinds and possibly the greatest orchestral percussion section in the world. But _those strings_! In Chicago! Muti is amazing. One of the great things I heard was a couple years ago: Hindemith's _Konzertmusik_ for brass and strings. It was jaw-dropping.

I heard Salonen do a Sibelius 7 that was to die for. I'm muchly looking forward to what he accomplishes in San Francisco.

Robertson has blown me away a couple times, admittedly all in 20th or 21st c. repertoire. But I heard him conduct a Ravel Left Hand Concerto with Leon Fleisher and Lyon that was superb, also with a very exciting and ferocious _Le Sacre_.

Speaking of _Le Sacre_, I heard Marin Alsop conduct it live with the Eugene Symphony. As in Eugene, Oregon, before anyone had heard of her. It was terrific!

Dausgaard in Seattle is the real deal. A Mahler 1 from them last fall blew me away, and check out Mahler 10 on Seattle's own label. Great things are afoot there.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> Muti is still alive, and rightly a legend. I've heard him live with Philadelphia and Chicago numerous times. Among great things he's done: he's added⁠-yes, added, _not_ ⁠at the expense of something else⁠-an extraordinary Italianate warmth in the strings. Several recent (pre-pandemic) performances I heard with Chicago, yes, _Chicago_ it was the strings that blew me away. The brass are just as good, as are the woodwinds and possibly the greatest orchestral percussion section in the world. But _those strings_! In Chicago! Muti is amazing. One of the great things I heard was a couple years ago: Hindemith's _Konzertmusik_ for brass and strings. It was jaw-dropping.
> 
> I heard Salonen do a Sibelius 7 that was to die for. I'm muchly looking forward to what he accomplished in San Francisco.
> 
> ...


I was about to mention Muti myself and was surprised nobody was talking about him. I've also seen him numerous times in Philly in the 1980s and in the 2010s in Chicago. Some people around Chicago seem to think it's cool and a sign of sophistication to talk down Maestro Muti, but I appreciate him very much.

I haven't seen any mention of David Zinman either. I saw him a few times in Baltimore and think he's solid right through the repertoire.

And what about Leonard Slatkin? He's still around. I saw him many times in DC with the NSO. Good interpretations of Ives, Barber, and Copland stand out for me.

Christoph Eschenbach is solid IMO. Saw him many times in DC with the NSO and more recently a couple of times at Ravinia with the CSO. Like him.

Ken-David Masur is now at both Milwaukee and directing the Civic Orchestra of Chicago (the CSO's development organization). I've seen him with the Civic and listened to live performances by Milwaukee on the radio last season. Masur doesn't always hit the mark for me, but I find him very interesting and look forward to taking in some concerts in the future up on the other side of the cheese curtain.

Those are some of my experiences close to home. I saw quite a few concerts during my career overseas, most conducted by rather obscure musicians and featuring obscure (to me) works of a national character; but also a couple conducted by Abbado in Berlin, but of course he's gone to a better place. In Frankfurt am Main I saw Sebastian Weigle conduct R. Strauss's _Arabella_ and thought he and the orchestra were great.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

mbhaub said:


> But here's the real thing: I've been fortunate enough to hear live conductors like Mehta, Bernstein, Karajan, Previn, Jarvi, Maazel, Abbado, Tennstedt, Solti, Svetlanov, Guilini, Ozawa, Dorati, Menuhin, Ormandy, Rostropovich, and others. Those older guys has something else going for them, a charisma, a presence that seems to be missing from most of the conductors today.


I tend to feel that way as well but I think it may just be romanticizing the past.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> I tend to feel that way as well but I think it may just be romanticizing the past.


Yeah, there is that possibility. I do have a great deal of compassion for today's conductors. Not only are they constantly being judged with maestros of yore, but they also don't have the exposure in magazines and newspapers, the recording industry is imploding, they have to know more repertoire than any prior generation, and they have to deal will highly skilled and trained musicians who can be the toughest judges of all. When Dohnanyi was in Cleveland he used to complain that he and the orchestra would work their butts off presenting a great concert and then George Szell got the credit.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Becca said:


> Five come to mind for various reasons...
> 
> Daniel Harding - A low-key but impressive conductor ... when he isn't flying commercial aircraft! Some of his Mahler and Strauss has been very good. Check out his Alpensinfonie with the Saito Kinen orchestra.
> 
> ...


Great post. I investigated these composers. They are, generally speaking, energetic with clean crisp technique and they seem to really energize the groups they work with.

A couple of thoughts - judging a conductor - initially I get an initial impression based on technique and personality on the podium. The next step for me is to hear how they rehearse - do they have a clear vision of interpretation? Do they communicate well verbally? Do they really hear what's going on around them? And lastly of course is the music. Do they find and bring out details and nuances? Do they keep me, the listener engaged? Is the ensemble together, precise? Etc etc.

One other thought. Is it just me or does it not seem that young conductors try to show EVERY little thing they can with their gestures and older conductors give less minutiae? My hunch is that seasoned conductors realize that musicians eyes aren't glued on them - they have to read the music.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

And then there is the intriguing case of Barbara Hannigan. It isn't that going from singer to conductor is that unique, even that she sometimes does both at the same time, but I am fascinated by her very cautious choice of repertoire outside of the vocal arena - Haydn symphonies, early Schoenberg, Stravinsky, early Ligeti, etc. It is a great shame that her Mahler 4th concert with the Munich Philharmonic, scheduled for last month, was a COVID casualty as it represented an interesting repertoire expansion. Definitely not the predictable career path!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Among those super star stick wavers of today, Gustavo Dudamel is one of very few who has aroused my interest. To be honest when he first came into the scene, the hype around him gave me a negative impression, but now I think he may be the real deal. His recordings have shown he's less of a showman than I was led to believe. There is something more subtle, musical beyond the spectacle.

I do think Yannick Nézet-Séguin is the real deal, but he's a bit different from the rest. His sensual Bruckner/Mahler and warm Ravel on records may not have become everybody's favourite, while his otherwise excellent Schumann was messed up by DG's as-usual poor engineering, but he certainly has a unique Nézet-Séguin sound, and I like that very much.

Vasily Petrenko, Vladimir Jurowski, Daniel Harding and Simon Rattle are some conductors whose records I tend to buy "blind". I like all of V. Petrenko's records that I have listened to, especially his Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov and most recently Richard Strauss. I like how musical they sound and there is absolutely no cheap thrill. Jurowski is the more unpredictable maverick, making his records a bit of a hit-and-miss for me, but his Tchaikovsky and Mahler are excellent and his Richard Strauss is different but very interesting. I've been a long-time fan of Harding's records, but it is very much an acquired taste - There is a kind of fluffiness in how his recordings sound, an prominent example being his Mahler 10, which I've grown to love. Well, I suppose Simon Rattle should be (rightly) placed in the super star category. I've found his Mahler, Beethoven, Messiaen, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Sibelius either excellent or very interesting.

I like the unorthodox soundscapes of the Fischer brothers very much, with Ádám being even more a maverick than Iván. If Iván's Mahler 7 sounds different from the rest (esp. with that "happy" element!), Ádám's M7 sounds absolutely nuts! Love it. And Ádám's Beethoven is also top drawer.

Neeme Järvi should be credited for doing us a great service by giving us a whole library of underrated/obscure/second line works, even though most music lovers probably would not vote for him as their favourite conductor (although his two conductor sons did in a Gramophone poll years ago). Having said that, his all-rounder Prokofiev cycle remains one of my favourites.

Herbert Blomstedt is probably the last of the old guards, age wise at least. Is he getting more and more refined as he ages? His recent Mahler 9 recording is magnificent. I wish him a long and healthy life.

I think Emmanuel Krivine is one of those overly underrated conductors. I first came across his name from the positive reviews of his period Beethoven cycle, which has now become one of my favourites. I'm also very impressed by his heart-on-sleeve Ravel and to a certain extent his Debussy.

Philippe Herreweghe, Jos van Immerseel and Marc Minkowski are some of my favourite HIP conductors. Have to admit, Herreweghe and Minkowski are a bit of a hit-and-miss for me, but I really like Herreweghe's Antwerp Schumann and Minkowski's Haydn and some of his Schubert. Immerseel's records tend to be more consistent with my taste, especially his Beethoven and, perhaps a surprise, his refreshing Johann Strauss Jr.! 

My most recent "discovery" is Thomas Adès the conductor! His recent Beethoven/Barry record has completely won me over. 

One young conductor that I'm going to follow is Pablo Heras-Casado. I've found his recent Falla disc very impressive.

And finally, Teodor Currentzis! Everything he touched has become gold IMHO.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2020)

Simplicissimus said:


> I haven't seen any mention of David Zinman either. I saw him a few times in Baltimore and think he's solid right through the repertoire.


I think he's retired. He's certainly retired from the Tonhalle - I listened to his last concert, at the Proms in 2014.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Kiki said:


> Among those super star stick wavers of today, Gustavo Dudamel is one of very few who has aroused my interest. To be honest when he first came into the scene, the hype around him gave me a negative impression, but now I think he may be the real deal. His recordings have shown he's less of a showman than I was led to believe. There is something more subtle, musical beyond the spectacle.
> 
> I do think Yannick Nézet-Séguin is the real deal, but he's a bit different from the rest. His sensual Bruckner/Mahler and warm Ravel on records may not have become everybody's favourite, while his otherwise excellent Schumann was messed up by DG's as-usual poor engineering, but he certainly has a unique Nézet-Séguin sound, and I like that very much.
> 
> ...


Agree with quite a lot of this, but count me out when it comes to Rattle. For me his readings are excessively micromanaged, always looking to "do something with" the music instead of bringing out what's already there and letting it speak for itself. The one exception that I've come across is his set of the Beethoven concertos with Brendel and the VPO, and I strongly suspect it's no coincidence that an even longer-established musician had a crucial input into those performances.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Heck148 said:


> I forgot to mention Barenboim, Blomstedt and *Haitink*....the latter two are certainly getting up there in years, but I've heard fine concerts from them...same with Barenboim...I've heard some very excellent Mahler(7), Bruckner (8) sand Wagner from him....


Absolutely, I just left Haitink out of my list since he retired last year.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I would like to add Ton Koopman, René Jacobs and Trevor Pinnock to my earlier list, as I sort of left out the HIP-po's, as if they don't do a great job on conducting. Each of them is a vivid and energetic conductor has delivered landmark interpretations.

I also have a particular appreciation for Gabriel Garrido, an Argentinian conductor who recorded a magnificent Monteverdi cycle with his Ensemble Elyma. I don't know if he is still active and if the Ensemble Elyma is still there, it is very difficult to find any information about them. The recordings were released by the equally obscure French 'K617' record label. 

Also, add Francois-Xavier Roth, who is a later day HIP conductor with his own orchestra 'les Siecles'. Heard him doing great things with Mahler and Debussy.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Agree about Francois-Xavier Roth. He's an excellent conductor, with a lot of imagination and personality.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Has there ever been a better Bartok conductor than Ivan Fischer? His Concerto for Orchestra with the Budapest Festival Orchestra is a desert island recording for me. His Mahler 4 is also excellent. Honestly though, now that I’ve thought a bit more I’d have to say my favorite living conductor in terms of consistent quality is J.E. Gardiner. Sure, his very quick, high-powered approach isn’t always to my taste, but he always gets nuance, musicality, and flair out of his players and singers. His Haydn Creation, Brahms German Requiem, Berlioz Fantastique, Mass in B Minor and Bach cantatas, and lots of others are some of my go-to recordings. I can say the exact opposite about his HIP counterpart Herreweghe, who always sounds like he takes very cautious, underpowered, intentionally “tasteful” approaches of music by just casually skating over the surface with excessive polish. 

I don’t understand the Manfred Honeck vibes. To me he is more bombast than soul.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Has there ever been a better Bartok conductor than Ivan Fischer? .


Ever?? Sure, Reiner most definitely, Solti...of course, they are long gone.....


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Records are a terrible way to judge conductors. Some of them really shine in a live context. Esa-Pekka Salonen is one of them. His discs are fine, but they don't have the intensity he brings live, and they feel much more clinical than they should. Other conductors makes good records, but are deeply disappointing live, when they aren't downright awful.
On a general note, I think Rattle, Nelsons, Dudamel, Nézet-Séguin, Gilbert and all the so-called "star conductors" of today mediocre at best. They're where they are for political and commercial reasons more than musical ones. Some lesser known conductors are much better.


----------



## perdido34 (Mar 11, 2015)

Confining my list to living conductors I've heard here in Cleveland:

Lintu
Malkki
Jurowski
Welser-Moest (Yeah, I know about the criticisms from the past, but he has become much more energized in the last decade)
Blomstedt
Spano (saw him conduct a fine Mahler 5 with the student orchestra from Cleveland Institute of Music)
Falletta (she conducted the CIM orchestra in Pines/Fountains of Rome, Hindemith Symphonic Metamorphoses)
Jahja Ling (never gave a bad concert here, and his Mahler 8th was outstanding)
Wigglesworth (on this list based on his local performances of Mahler 10 and his Shostakovich recordings)


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

CnC Bartok said:


> There's been quite a bit of positive fuss about the young Czech conductor Jakub Hrůša. I haven't heard him live, gut the recordings I have heard him in are exceptionally good.


Yeah, based on this clip alone, he seems amazing!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

There often seems to be somewhat of a "knee jerk" reaction to some conductors, e.g. micro-manage for Rattle. It seems to be an easy and immediately dismissive criticism, but while he certainly does do that at times, it certainly isn't a constant truth as demonstrated by some of my blind comparisons. Another classic example of that kind of reaction is HvK, which I will admit to occasionally having done myself!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

He must have been there somewhere but I missed him - Teodor Currentzis - have not produced that many records but those he has have been exceptional. I do also think that Vanska deserves a mention even though his way is less tub thumping than subtlety.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> There often seems to be somewhat of a "knee jerk" reaction to some conductors, e.g. micro-manage for Rattle. It seems to be an easy and immediately dismissive criticism, but while he certainly does do that at times, it certainly isn't a constant truth as demonstrated by some of my blind comparisons. Another classic example of that kind of reaction is HvK, which I will admit to occasionally having done myself!


What makes you call that a "knee jerk", Becca? I have probably used those words about a lot of his earlier work but the words were borne of disappointment after trying hard to get on with the highly recommended discs I had purchased.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I've tried with Rattle, I really have. In have the same irritation as Becca with reflexive general criticism, which clearly can't always be true, but Rattle.... ugh. 

There are a couple of his recordings I like, but not many, and almost zero in the standard repertoire.

I never write anyone off, because I know that's a mistake, but Rattle for me is close.

In other news, I very much wish to hear more from Simone Young. I've only heard her very excellent Bruckner, in recordings only, but based on that very much would like to hear more. 

Live vs. recordings can be very funny. For example, I've only Gianandrea Noseda live once, with the Chicago Symphony, and it was dreadfully dull. But he's made some recordings I think are great! Maybe Noseda/CSO just wasn't a match.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^ I don't mean that everyone does, but I see it so often as a way of dismissing anything he does. I have certainly experienced him doing that, but also not doing it and delivering marvelous performances. As I noted, in some cases where I included him in a blind comparison, a number of people found themselves positively surprised at what they heard.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I honestly don’t even know what “micromanaged” means. Rattle can be quirky - I think of his Mahler with the CBSO - but I like quirky, I think he often tries to emulate the highly personal, flexible style of the “old schoolers” like Furtwangler and Mengelberg to mixed results, but at the very least the results are interesting. His Brahms and Sibelius cycles are OK, I could do with a bit less of the thick, sludgy BPO strings though. Very heavy-handed and Teutonic.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> ^^ I don't mean that everyone does, but I see it so often as a way of dismissing anything he does. I have certainly experienced him doing that, but also not doing it and delivering marvelous performances. As I noted, in some cases where I included him in a blind comparison, a number of people found themselves positively surprised at what they heard.


I am sure he has done some wonderful things but my problem these days is I am reluctant to try. If only I had a reliable way to identify the good ones ... . Many of his advocates seem to love recordings I know I haven't liked that much so I tend to disregard them on the subject of Rattle.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Becca said:


> ^^ I don't mean that everyone does, but I see it so often as a way of dismissing anything he does. I have certainly experienced him doing that, but also not doing it and delivering marvelous performances. As I noted, in some cases where I included him in a blind comparison, a number of people found themselves positively surprised at what they heard.


What are some Rattle highlights for you, are any accessible as recordings?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

As Becca said, a lot of her blind comparisons had Rattle performances in and some were excellent and the most popular performances in the comparison. Some of the stereotyping around Rattle is silly and untrue and although he has been over fussy in the past it wasn't on every recording. Give him a break I say. Have a listen to his Dvorak Tone Poems and you'll hear how good he can be.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I probably came off sounding more negative about Ratttle than I meant. I mean, I wouldn't ever go so far as to say he should never have gotten the Berliner Philharmoniker position. But my disapprobation for him actually ran contrary to most reviews I read, which seemed to pander to him with every possible encomium, every new recording a "revelation" (looking at you, _Gramophone_.) I'd hear the recording and think, WTF? Maybe my expectations were too highly elevated.

And maybe what he does just isn't to my taste. _De gustibus_, etc. To me, many of Rattle's recordings and performances come across as affected and self-conscious. But I'm sure it's just me.

As I said, I haven't written him off, and won't. I'll be interested to hear what he does with the LSO, which is a good match.


----------



## JakePurches (Jun 3, 2020)

Anybody seen Wayne Marshall in action?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Kilgore Trout said:


> Records are a terrible way to judge conductors.


That's absolutely correct! Even live recordings distort what really was heard, and there are many live recordings that have been touched up in patching sessions. Some conductors thrive in the studio and many others are stifled. Only in a live concert can one truly judge. Recent recordings by Currentzis and Roth are terrific, but I'd sure like to hear them in concert to see if it's real.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Alas, however: my experience with great orchestras and conductors will be overwhelmingly via recordings. I can't get all over the world, and it would get far too expensive even if I lived somewhere like London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, or New York City.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I honestly don't even know what "micromanaged" means. Rattle can be quirky - I think of his Mahler with the CBSO - but I like quirky, I think he often tries to emulate the highly personal, flexible style of the "old schoolers" like Furtwangler and Mengelberg to mixed results, but at the very least the results are interesting. His Brahms and Sibelius cycles are OK, I could do with a bit less of the thick, sludgy BPO strings though. Very heavy-handed and Teutonic.


Despite saying you don't know what "micromanaged" means, you get pretty close to it in some of the rest of what you say, "highly personal and flexible" especially. Whenever I've heard a Rattle performance (and I've done so for many years, live as well as _via _ recordings), there are invariably numerous moments or even whole passages on which he shines a spotlight which isn't reflected in the score and which seems to me to detract from the coherence and flow of the piece as a whole. Of course tastes differ, which is fine, and "quirky" has its place in musicmaking - my problem with Rattle is that in his case, in my experience, it comes as standard. Far more often than not I've ended up thinking I heard more Rattle than I did Beethoven/Brahms/whoever in what he's just done, and for me that's overdoing it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I used to see Rattle regularly in the 80s and 90s with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, more recently it is via the occasional recording and the Berlin Phil's Digital Concert Hall. During the times that I saw him live I would occasionally come away feeling that the piece didn't hang together, which I suppose is somewhat analogous to micro-managing.

Of easily available performances/recordings, ones that come easily to mind are...

- Mahler 10th ... either Bournemouth or Berlin. Even better if you can find the full video of the LSO concert
- Mahler 9th - the Berlin Phil, not the Vienna
- Mahler 8th - Nat'l Youth Orch. of GB - find it on YouTube. The studio recording with the CBSO is also very good.
- The 3 most popular Stravinsky ballets
- Schoenberg - Gurrelieder
- Wagner - Rheingold - Bavarian Radio
- Bruckner - Symphony #9 - the SMBC completion
- Sibelius - Symphony #5 - the one done with the Philharmonia before his Birmingham days.

Beyond that you have to dig in the Berlin archives, also the more recent LSO streams.

You will notice that I don't have the Mahler 2nd on the list, that's mainly because I don't like his tempi in the 1st movement. That includes the well-regarded CBSO recording.

P.S. Also on YouTube, Nielsen 4th with the Royal Danish.

P.P.S. And if you can find the video of the Berlioz Damnation of Faust with the LSO.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Recordings have to suffice in many cases....live performance is the best, if course...the excitement of the actual concert hall cannot readily be transferred via recording....however, recordings, esp those of live performance, can be most revealing, and very exciting...


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I'm not a big Rattle fan...a lot of "ho-hum" responses...not bad, but not esp uplifting....I heard his NPO Mahler 9 on Great Performances a few years ago....not great, but ok, and I was thrilled that PBS/GP would air such a concert!! How great, to broadcast one of the greatest symphonies on TV!!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I have a recording of Jurowski and the LPO of the Mahler 2 and it is tremendously exciting.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

One thing I am 100% grateful to Rattle for, is his advocacy of the four-movement Bruckner 9! People really shouldn't be ending after the Adagio, not anymore. The myth that the 4th movement is merely incoherent scrips and scraps just needs to die. 

Thanks for your list, Becca. I'm not far off, then, in having heard most of the best Rattle has to offer. Maybe what he does just mostly isn't to my taste. But Merl has been trying to persuade me in PMs as well, so I will give Rattle some more listens in the future.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Becca said:


> As I noted, in some cases where I included him (*Rattle*) in a blind comparison, *a number of people found themselves positively surprised at what they heard*.





Merl said:


> As Becca said, a lot of her blind comparisons had *Rattle* performances in and some were excellent and the *most popular performances* in the comparison.


Which is the primary reason why they left and never returned and also why it's so difficult to assemble a new group of listeners - they are horrified at the prospect of lavishly praising that which they profess to profoundly loathe whilst contemptuously rubbishing that which they profess to deeply revere.

It takes a fair amount of courage to participate in the blind comparisons - there's no place to hide...


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm not a Mahler guy so as far as what Rattle has done there I can't say, but if you listen to (and watch) his Beethoven 3 (of which this is just a snippet), you'll find a thrilling, committed, detailed, perfectly paced rendition (in a piece that can easily feel bogged down in the wrong hands IMHO). I think Rattle is and will remain a legend in the industry.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

20centrfuge said:


> I think Rattle is and will remain a legend in the industry.


Even I as a detractor will never dispute this.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> ....I think Rattle is and will remain a legend in the industry.


A "legend"?? What's he done that is so legendary?? I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but I'm not familiar with anything he's done so stellar as to be legendary....


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

For starters, taking an orchestra (Birmingham) and moving it up a tier in quality and reputation is something that rarely happens. I can’t think of any conductors of recent generations who’ve done that. It says so much about his ability to mold and shape a product. Most conductors just ride the wave of what’s already there.

Secondly, the man is only, what 55? He’s still got 20 years or so to cement his place but his trajectory through his accomplishments points to what I would consider legend.

But I guess time will tell, right?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> For starters, taking an orchestra (Birmingham) and moving it up a tier in quality and reputation is something that rarely happens. I can't think of any conductors of recent generations who've done that. It says so much about his ability to mold and shape a product. Most conductors just ride the wave of what's already there.


There have been marvelous orchestra builders who truly are legendary...Rattle is not in the same league as these giants- Reiner, Monteux, Szell, Dorati, Rodzinski...moving an orchestra up a step is certainly commendable, but hardly phenomenal...



> Secondly, the man is only, what 55? He's still got 20 years or so to cement his place but his trajectory through his accomplishments points to what I would consider legend.
> But I guess time will tell, right?


I think he's got a long way to go...


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> Secondly, the man is only, what 55? He's still got 20 years or so to cement his place but his trajectory through his accomplishments points to what I would consider legend.
> 
> But I guess time will tell, right?


He is actually 65


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I stand corrected, and I know that I am not really qualified to assess Rattle’s position compared to others in history, so there’s that. 

What’s everyone’s beef with him? Why don’t you like him?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

20centrfuge said:


> I stand corrected, and I know that I am not really qualified to assess Rattle's position compared to others in history, so there's that.
> 
> What's everyone's beef with him? Why don't you like him?


I don't "not like" him....I just haven't been overly impressed by what I've heard....not bad, just hasn't blown me away.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Heck148 said:


> I don't "not like" him....I just haven't been overly impressed by what I've heard....not bad, just hasn't blown me away.


Just because you and I haven't been overly impressed takes nothing away from the fact that Rattle has had a massive, storied, hugely impactful career, and has led many of the most prestigious musical institutions that there are.

Unless we're going to limit ourselves only to our own subjective assessments, Rattle has already had a legendary career.

And if we are going to go with only personal subjective assessments, Reiner is out for me for "legend" status. For me he is one of the most overrated conductors of that generation. There are maybe two Reiner recordings I truly feel a need to own, and they both are mainly so because of Heifetz.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As to the question of orchestra building, yes some of the big names of the past did a lot, but personally I am far more impressed by someone who can manage it cooperatively as opposed to the autocrats of old.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Becca said:


> As to the question of orchestra building, yes some of the big names of the past did a lot, but personally I am far more impressed by someone who can manage it cooperatively as opposed to the autocrats of old.


I very much agree with this. It's a pity the likes of Nikisch wasn't the preferred maestro model.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'll renew my position that James Gaffigan, whose discography includes recordings of Rachmaninoff, Beethoven, Brahms and Prokofiev that have received plaudits and raves from critics, is positioned to be a major force in this decade once he ascends to the leadership of a major orchestra.

My favorite is his recording is his YouTube video of a Schubert mass he conducted in Cleveland. It contains all the benchmarks of his style -- clarity, fury, resolve and tenderness even though the soloists are somewhat variable.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Knorf said:


> Just because you and I haven't been overly impressed takes nothing away from the fact that Rattle has had a massive, storied, hugely impactful career, and has led many of the most prestigious musical institutions that there are...Unless we're going to limit ourselves only to our own subjective assessments, Rattle has already had a legendary career.


I guess the definition of "legendary" will have to be spelled out more clearly...



> And if we are going to go with only personal subjective assessments, Reiner is out for me for "legend" status.


Well, to each his own, I guess....but Reiner's status has been well-cemented, established....his recordings have been mainstays for some 70 years or so [80 if you include is Pittsburgh recordings] - his orchestra building was indeed impressive - Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, MetOpera, Chicago...only Monteux rivals that level of achievement. There's no question that he was a real prick, an sob, not a nice person at all....many great Maestros from that period were not very pleasant individuals,
I was just last night listening to some of Reiner's efforts - Dvorak "New World", Carnival Overture, Weinberger Polka & Fugue - this is amazing stuff - the impact, dynamism, flexibility - very impressive....you just don't hear that at present...at that time, conductors really trained their orchestras , spent most of the season with them, really drilled the style they wanted.

His own musicians give testimony: Ray Still - from an IDRS Journal back in the 90s:

<<_Incidentally, it is strange to me that the critics in this country
are still unable to evaluate the greatness of Fritz Reiner.
How do they account for the permanence in the catalog of
almost all of the Reiner records made in the short ten years
or less that he was here? I see so many lists of conductors
and he is seldom mentioned. Just listen to the breadth of his
repertoire on CD and in each category he has few peers!
People like Maazel, Muti, Mehta, Slatkin, Masur, Von
Dohnanyi, Ormandy, and a host of others should not be
mentioned in the same world. _>>

Ray Still (40 years first Oboe, Chicago Symphony)
Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Donald Peck, longtime CSO principal flute, wrote this in his "The Right Place, the Right Time" [2007]:

"_Dr. Reiner. as we had to address him, was a great musician and a wonderful conductor...[---]...everyone always agreed that Reiner's concerts were the absolute best musical presentations: musical, exciting and expertly performed. There was no one equal to him at that time, nor is there now._"

Adolph "Bud" Herseth [ long time principal trumpet CSO:

from Chicago Tribune 1988:
_"Of course, I played under Fritz Reiner- everybody said he was a tough you-know-what. Of course he was; all he wanted you to do was to play well all the time. What`s wrong with that? That`s what you`re here for."
_
70, 80 years from now, are people going to be listening to Rattle recordings, telling Rattle stories, etc?? I don't know, maybe, time will tell.....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> As to the question of orchestra building, yes some of the big names of the past did a lot, but personally I am far more impressed by someone who can manage it cooperatively as opposed to the autocrats of old.


There's no doubt that some of the great conductors, orchestra builders of the past were really miserable human beings - nasty, tyrannical, sarcastic, domineering - Rodzinski, Reiner, Szell, Stokowski, Toscanini, Mravinsky could be really ruthless in their treatment of musicians....but that was the power structure in those days - the music director had absolute power - Szell dictated what a musician's salary would be!! Rodzinski, Reiner, Stokowski practiced summary, on-the-spot firings, esp Rodzinski.
other conductors got results using a different approach - Monteux got great results - great orchestra builder - Boston [after the WWI fiasco and the disastrous following strike], Amsterdam CGB, San Francisco, LondonSO...but he was courteous, respectful to the musicians, and he was respected for his impeccable musicianship....Bruno Walter was very respectful towards his musicians as well - he always tried to learn the names of his principal players, that he might address them by name at rehearsal....strong-willed, for sure [all great conductors are], but he was polite...


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Becca said:


> As to the question of orchestra building, yes some of the big names of the past did a lot, but personally I am far more impressed by someone who can *manage it cooperatively* as opposed to the autocrats of old.


Incense-burning SoCal hippie chick... still wears flowers in her hair... hasn't worn shoes since 1973...


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Heck148, you made my point for me. Your and my not being all that impressed by Rattle is irrelevant. He has an undeniably huge career, and people (not you and I, but innumerable others) _are_ talking about him like that already.

As for 50-60 years from now, who knows. But can you name a single conductor in history who held posts like Rattle has, literally the best and biggest budget orchestras there are, and _wasn't_ broadly considered to be a legend after they died?

Sure, some people will diss Karajan (you), or Reiner (me), or whomever, but we all know those conductors are broadly considered among the greatest, and nothing you and I think or say will have anything other than trivial to zero impact on that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Becca said:


> As to the question of orchestra building, yes some of the big names of the past did a lot, but personally I am far more impressed by someone who can manage it cooperatively as opposed to the autocrats of old.


Karajan used to say that you don't make a young man a great conductor by giving him a first rate orchestra to start with. Give him a third rate orchestra and let him make it into a second rate orchestra and it will teach him his craft.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Knorf said:


> As for 50-60 years from now, who knows....... we all know those conductors are broadly considered among the greatest, and nothing you and I think or say will have anything other than trivial to zero impact on that.


Right you are...impossible to tell what people will be doing, listening to that far ahead....legends kind of emerge with time....


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Karajan used to say that you don't make a young man a great conductor by giving him a first rate orchestra to start with. Give him a third rate orchestra and let him make it into a second rate orchestra and it will teach him his craft.


That theory has been advanced as one of the prime reasons that so many great conductors developed in the late 19th, early, mid 20th century....many of the greats started out as assistants in regional opera houses, smaller orchestras....singers and musicians not that talented, perhaps over the hill, just marking time...but the assistants had to get them to perform. Those conducting assistants that could produce moved up the ranks


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Kirill Petrenko:

Thoughts? Anyone been to a live performance? Recordings by him?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I've seen a number of his concerts on the live streams, some quite impressive. Very recently he did an exceptional Asrael Symphony. Going back aways I remember one of his earliest BPO concerts was a very good Elgar Symphony #2. I have read much positive comment about his opera work in Munich.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

NY Times Article on Petrenko 

The article is mostly positive but I was disappointed to read this:

_"A more glaring deficiency, however, is Mr. Petrenko's apparent allergy to contemporary music. This season, he has claimed his modernist bona fides - leading Berg and Schoenberg works that aren't far from their centennials. And there are few living composers among the Philharmonic's coming programs even with guest conductors. His predecessor, Simon Rattle, transformed and updated the orchestra's repertoire; so far, it doesn't look like Mr. Petrenko is interested in doing the same."_


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I see that in the coming season, should it actually happen, he has scheduled Iannis Xenakis, Andrew Norman and Anna Thorvaldsdóttir. What I find rather refreshing about him is that he is interested in mid 20th century music, an area that Rattle avoided. I see the likes of Suk, Korngold, Ives, Shostakovich and Weill, so he is "updating the repertoire" in different ways!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I have one of Petrenko's scarce pre BPO recordings, Hans Pfitzner's Palestrina. It is very good, but I only got to know the piece through this recording. In the BPO digital concert hall, I have seen a beautiful Mahler 6, which he would have performed at the cancelled Amsterdam Mahler festival. 

I think Petrenko will be a step forward for the BPO after Rattle, musically. Rattle is far from subtle and he doesn't seem to grow older and wiser, like other conductors. I hope there will be plenty of recordings issued by Petrenko and the BPO.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> I hope there will be plenty of recordings issued by Petrenko and the BPO.


I do, too, although he is famously recording shy. Still, one assumes you don't get to be the principal conductor of the Berliner Philharmoniker without agreeing to make some recordings.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Knorf said:


> One thing I am 100% grateful to Rattle for, is his advocacy of the four-movement Bruckner 9! People really shouldn't be ending after the Adagio, not anymore. The myth that the 4th movement is merely incoherent scrips and scraps just needs to die.


Rattle completely ruined a live BPO performance of the completed Bruckner 9, a few years ago. I already don't like the completion, but also the great first 3 parts were a pain, literally, my ears were beeping afterwards. Rough and tasteless. Quite shameful, if you consider the Bruckner tradition of the BPO and the great recordings they made of it with other conductors. Rattle has no talent for Bruckner.

It could be that Rattle is better with less experienced musicians, like building an orchestra and an audience which he did in Birmingham. I think Birmingham was his finest accomplishment. He didn't manage to truly inspire the BPO, certainly not in the essential repertoire. Rattle may be an advocate of relatively unknown or 'completed' music, like Mahler 10 or Bruckner 9 or any contemporary composition, but there is little competition. In the main repertoire, Rattle didn't move the earth with the BPO, like many others did, both chief and guest conductors.

To me, Rattle is not a legend in the making, not a grand cru that gets better over the years.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> He didn't manage to truly inspire the BPO, certainly not in the essential repertoire. [...]In the main repertoire, Rattle didn't move the earth with the BPO


Is this a personal view, or have you some evidence that this a general view?


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I also think Rattle was overshadowed by many of Berlin's guest conductors, and not just in standard repertoire. But I don't hate his Bruckner has much as NLAdriaan. I did a blind listen on TC of Bruckner 9, mvt. II, and the Rattle was highly praised, even though most agreed that he sort of out-Karajaned Karajan (in the way Karajan is stereotypically bashed for smoothness.)

Can we have a moment to cheer for the Berliner Philharmoniker Digital Concert Hall? Love it.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Karajan used to say that you don't make a young man a great conductor by giving him a first rate orchestra to start with. Give him a third rate orchestra and let him make it into a second rate orchestra and it will teach him his craft.


I think there's some real truth to this, one of the reasons I wonder about Dudamel. He took a _student_ orchestra, and made it remarkable, but I still speculate he became famous prematurely. Rather like his dramatic pacing, actually: always premature.

And it's one of the reasons it's so sad to me that Peter Erős never quite hit the top ranks. He guest conducted all over: Cleveland, Concertgebouw, Helsinki, Seattle. But he really shined when taking on an orchestra like the San Diego Symphony or Malmö Symphony and moved them up a notch. Two or three notches with San Diego, actually!

But he was way too much of an ********, I suspect. Not to the orchestra, although he had a temper. Rather, to the board, and to people who could have, and often wanted, to help him. He was a conductor from a precious century! Maybe if he had won the Concertgebouw job, when Haitink got it. Rumor had it that Erős was widely considered a favorite, but then the orchestra went conservative and stayed Dutch. I speculate Erős never got over it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Karajan used to say that you don't make a young man a great conductor by giving him a first rate orchestra to start with. Give him a third rate orchestra and let him make it into a second rate orchestra and it will teach him his craft.


That sounds like it has some merit, though it doesn't negate Becca's idea that a cooperative rather than an autocracy might be preferable.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> That sounds like it has some merit, though it doesn't negate Becca's idea that a cooperative rather than an autocracy might be preferable.


Es but it doesn't invalidate Karajan's point and that he did it himself. In his first opera house his orchestra was lousy, he has to raise and lower the curtain himself and also teach the principle Bess every new part as the guy could not read music! But he reckoned it to be a great apprenticeship. Of course you can't be the autocrat these days as society has changed and other means have to be found. In terestingly observers said that Karajan never lost his temper with players as he said it just made them nervous and play worse. He had endless patience to get what he wanted even if he kept everyone there all day!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Has there ever been a better Bartok conductor than Ivan Fischer? His Concerto for Orchestra with the Budapest Festival Orchestra is a desert island recording for me. His Mahler 4 is also excellent. Honestly though, now that I've thought a bit more I'd have to say my favorite living conductor in terms of consistent quality is J.E. Gardiner. Sure, his very quick, high-powered approach isn't always to my taste, but he always gets nuance, musicality, and flair out of his players and singers. His Haydn Creation, Brahms German Requiem, Berlioz Fantastique, Mass in B Minor and Bach cantatas, and lots of others are some of my go-to recordings. I can say the exact opposite about his HIP counterpart Herreweghe, who always sounds like he takes very cautious, underpowered, intentionally "tasteful" approaches of music by just casually skating over the surface with excessive polish.
> 
> I don't understand the Manfred Honeck vibes. To me he is more bombast than soul.


A better Bartok conductor? Have you heard the Kocsis recordings? Their approach is not a million miles away from Fischer's but (to my ears) they are greatly preferable. But, fair enough, Fischer is a great conductor.

But Gardiner? I can't take him at all! Too many of his recordings are rigid and fail to engage fully with the music - features I put down to his conveyor belt approach and mass production. I don't hear much nuance at all in any of the recordings of his that I have (quite a few). He does have a history of shing a light on a new and interesting way with familiar music but, with this done, I find the others who follow him tend to _realise _the resulting music better. I do prefer Herreweghe in some recordings - they often sound far more musical than Gardiner's usually do - but I agree he can be a little smooth.

From what I have heard of Honeck (not that much) I have formed a possibly wrong impression that he is a little like Alan Gilbert, who I often find rather superficial.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

MacLeod said:


> Is this a personal view, or have you some other evidence that this a general view?


It is my personal view, but also a 'general' view would only be a combination of personal views. The evidence is however for anyone to judge in the widely available recordings. So, just listen for yourself. But as to general evidence, not many Rattle/BPO recordings show up in the shortlists from professional critics, especially not of the key repertoire. Brahms, Beethoven, Bruckner and even Mahler. When limited to the BPO, just compare recordings by Abbado, Karajan, Harnoncourt, Boulez, Wand, Haitink and probably many more. Rattle just isn't in the same league. It sounds massive and not very lively and as I experienced, rough.

In general, it is quite well audible if a top notch orchestra is outperforming itself or if it is on autopilot. Especially with live concerts, but also with recordings. Rattle's CBSO recordings have a lot of energy and are playful, which he doesn't reach with the BPO.

My concert experiences with Rattle are of course unique. But I heard him long time ago with the Rotterdam Philharmonic and recently with the BPO and Bruckner 9. It was a world of difference.

Some conductors grow old and just get better: Haitink, Blomstedt, Abbado, Wand, Harnoncourt (in some repertoire). Others are living legends all the way through (Karajan, Bernstein). I just don't think Rattle is one of them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> It is my personal view, but also a 'general' view would only be a combination of personal views. The evidence is however for anyone to judge in the widely available recordings. So, just listen for yourself.


Ah, I misunderstood. I inferred that you were referring to what people were saying about him and the BPO, rather than evidence derived from the performances.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> ^^ I don't mean that everyone does, but I see it so often as a way of dismissing anything he does. I have certainly experienced him doing that, but also not doing it and delivering marvelous performances. As I noted, in some cases where I included him in a blind comparison, a number of people found themselves positively surprised at what they heard.


Yes, I discovered a good Rattle in one of those. By that point after too many disappointments with him I was not bothering to follow recommendations for his recordings - time is always limited - and it was good to know that he could do things I liked.

I enjoy the blind challenges (thank you!) and have participated in most of them. They are great fun. I have mostly not been surprised by the results but there are occasions when I have been. That said, I am not at all convinced by the argument sometimes advanced that the results are a more accurate or scientific picture of your preferences and that knowing the name of a performer determines how you hear something. Is it really so common to not know what you like and to only follow reputation or some prejudice?

If you listen to more than one at a time then the first will influence how you hear the second (if the first is fast it can make the second seem slow, for example, or if one has very good sound it can make another seem to have poor sound) and if you don't then you have your memory and mood to contend with (or I do!). Also, a "critical hearing" - perhaps notepad in hand - seems to me a very artificial way of listening to music. Both details and the way they all fit in with the whole can be all too easy to miss under these circumstances. It is what the music does to me, perhaps as the only time I will listen to that piece in a period of months (not as part of a string of five), that matters as does how a performance sits with me over time.

There probably is some truth that knowing the performer's identity can influence what you hear but is it really such a big influence? At the level of sampling it might be but listening to a whole performance? And several times? If it doesn't do the job it doesn't help or hinder to know it is Karajan (or whoever you idolise or deplore) and if it does the job well then so what if it is a conductor you usually dislike.

So let's have more - particularly those which (like yours, Becca) introduce a number of less widely known recordings by nevertheless well-know performers - but let's drop the nonsense about it being a more scientific way of evaluating a performance.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

People bring potentially erroneous pre-conceptions to listening all the time.

I made converts to Boulez's Mahler, when it was being newly released, by not telling them who it was until _after_ they told me what they thought of it. That cycle is very well accepted now, but it sure wasn't when it was brand new. If they listened first, they loved it. If they knew who it was in advance, as often as not the usual crap clichés got tossed out. ("Too clinical", "an X-ray not an interpretation", "emotionless", etc., all so very short-sighted and biased, looking back now.) Of course some did actually come in with open ears and were at least impressed if not blown away.

So, yes, blind listening is an excellent way to go in and be sure of leaving potentially misleading biases at the door.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

I agree that by now, we all have expectations and pre-conceptions about certain artists and certain music. This is the logical result from listening to many interpretations of many pieces of music, many times. When I started off, I would record radio broadcasts on cassette tape and so got to learn quite some music. The choice of buying this or that recording, was already different, as you hope to buy the right one. So, reputation, reviews etc. became an issue. And then you find out that reviews are in a way useless, as it still doesn't mean that you would agree. You start to develop your own taste. 

I would dive in any Mahler concert or recording when I started listening, like a rollercoaster. Now, I often prefer a less emotional approach, more true to the music. 

And finally, artists develop as well. Haitink started off with Mahler in the sixties, would go all-in in the eighties and grew to a more distant look in the 2010's. 

You can't listen to all recordings, so a pre-conception helps to find your way.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

This thread (and all those like it) is predicated on the mutual acceptance of the premise that a conductor has a characteristically unique "voice" that is both readily identifiable and exclusive to that particular conductor.

Without recognizable identifiers being known in advance, would anyone be able to readily name a specific conductor after listening to a representative sampling of their recordings?

What if three to five compositions recorded by one specific individual were presented with a selection of ten conductors who were active during the same period, the question then being "which one of these ten was the conductor of these recordings?"


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

NLAdriaan said:


> You can't listen to all recordings, so a pre-conception helps to find your way.


This is very true.

ETA: Maybe Merl can!


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Duncan said:


> ...What if three to five compositions recorded by one specific individual were presented with a selection of ten conductors who were active during the same period, the question then being "which one of these ten was the conductor of these recordings?"


What is the use of such a test??


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> What is the use of such a test??


Re-read the post - the answer is contained within the premise...

"Without recognizable identifiers being known in advance, would anyone be able to readily name a specific conductor after listening to a representative sampling of their recordings?"


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Duncan said:


> Re-read the post - the answer is contained within the premise...
> 
> "Without recognizable identifiers being known in advance, would anyone be able to readily name a specific conductor after listening to a representative sampling of their recordings?"


Well, I did read it already.

Re-cognizing requires cognition and this allows for identification. I am no native speaker, but isn't recognition and identification almost the same thing? If so, you might want to re-think your circular statement


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> Well, I did read it already.
> 
> Re-cognizing requires cognition and this allows for identification. I am no native speaker, but isn't recognition and identification almost the same thing? If so, you might want to re-think your circular statement


No... you can "recognize" something - "This is Mahler's 9th... this is Bruckner's 7th... etc... without being able to "identify" either the conductor or the orchestra...

To simplify the premise - "If you didn't know who you were listening to you wouldn't know who you were listening to..."


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

As mentioned before, *JoAnn Falletta*, deserves some nods. Her recording of Dohnanyi's Violin Concerti (Naxos) is superb and she is generally well thought of (her Gliere and Schmitt recordings were especially well received).

*Jose Serebrier* likewise deserves a mention. His Glazunov cycle continues to be the best in the market and he's excellent in Ned Rorem's music (the symphonies could not have been better played and recorded).

*Martyn Brabbins*. Who could forget him and his work in promoting obscure music (of Stojowski, Lyapunov, you name it). He is doing an excellent service.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Duncan said:


> No... you can "recognize" something - "This is Mahler's 9th... this is Bruckner's 7th... etc... without being able to "identify" either the conductor or the orchestra...
> 
> To simplify the premise - "If you didn't know who you were listening to you wouldn't know who you were listening to..."


OK. Yes, it starts with knowing a piece of music. After this, you will be able to compare different interpretations to the one you already know. And then you will be able to say which one you prefer. And if it happens that a certain artist pops up as your preferred one more than once, this person might become your preferred supplier.



> ...What if three to five compositions recorded by one specific individual were presented with a selection of ten conductors who were active during the same period, the question then being "which one of these ten was the conductor of these recordings?"


I still don't see the use of this test or even how it would work out?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> OK. Yes, it starts with knowing a piece of music. After this, you will be able to compare different interpretations to the one you already know. And then you will be able to say which one you prefer. And if it happens that a certain artist pops up as your preferred one more than once, this person might become your preferred supplier.
> 
> *I still don't see the use of this test or even how it would work out?*


This would be an example of a hypothetical test...

I create a thread in Classical Music entitled - "It's time to play - Name... That... Conductor!" - (cue wild applause)...

I choose one movement (the first or third) from one less well-known but still significant composition from a first or second tier composer...

There are two versions of this test -

The simple version -

List a *single* audio sample of the movement from the composition chosen and provide the name of ten era-specific conductors who would be considered contemporaries of one another - for example -

Barbirolli

Böhm

Furtwängler

Jochum

Klemperer

Monteux

Mravinsky

Munch

Reiner

Walter

Question - Which one of these ten conducted the audio sample that you just listened to?

This is the difficult version -

I list *ten* audio samples of one movement from one composition and provide the name of ten era-specific conductors who would be considered contemporaries of one another - each of whom has conducted one of the ten audio samples -

Match each conductor with one of the 10 audio samples provided -

Abbado

Bernstein

Giulini

Haitink

HvK

Kleiber

Kubelík

Rattle

Solti

Szell

Few, if any, would be able to answer the simple version...

No one, not even _le lièvre_ would be able to answer more than a third (including the two lucky guesses) of the difficult version in which one needs to match ten conductors with ten recordings.

Which is the point of my original post -



Duncan said:


> This thread (and all those like it) is predicated on the mutual acceptance of the premise that a conductor has a characteristically unique "voice" that is both readily identifiable and exclusive to that particular conductor.
> 
> Without recognizable identifiers being known in advance, would anyone be able to readily name a specific conductor after listening to a representative sampling of their recordings?


My answer is -

"If you didn't know who you were listening to you wouldn't know who you were listening to..."


----------

