# Karajan's Wagner...Your thoughts and opinions?



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Karajan seems to be controversial in many of his interpretations.
What are your opinions on his Wagner opera recordings?

And how do they compare with other Wagner conductors conducting and interpretations?
Thank you :tiphat:


----------



## The Conte (May 31, 2015)

Call me a heretic, but I much prefer Karajan over the more bombastic and crash, bang, wallop prone Solti in Wagner. However, both are better in Strauss.

Like most people I prefer early Karajan (his Bayreuth 52 Tristan is a classic), but whilst I like his other Wagner recordings to a certain degree, I don't consider any of them as essential. Kna, Furtwaengler, Keilberth and Barenboim are my go to Wagnerians.

N.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

My imprint Meistersinger was the Dresden Karajan so it looms large in my oeuvre. I have a soft spot for his ring cycle but the live Salzburg versions are much better than his studio stuff. In the main I feel that can be said of a good deal of Karajan’s Wagner. Studio pretty good, live, so much more exciting.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

In general I prefer Karajan's live recordings of opera, not only Wagner's, to his studio efforts, and his work from the 1950s as recorded by EMI to his later stuff for DG, which can sound too cultivated, focused too much on sensuous effect, and unspontaneous. I gather that he was increasingly insistent on having a hand in the engineering in the Berlin studios, and the sound balances and dynamic range on the recordings no doubt met with his approval. I tend not to like them; often, what sounds like a gargantuan string section, enhanced by strong reverberation, swamps everything, homogenizing Wagner's orchestral sound picture except when Karajan makes his brass section blare out over it. It sounds exaggerated, calculated and almost synthetic to me, not like people making music.

Karajan's casting choices were not always the best, and could be in some ways odd or debatable. In his _Ring,_ for example, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, with his heady lyric baritone, doesn't sound like a Wotan to me; Gundula Janowitz as Sieglinde is a fragile porcelain figurine and couldn't remotely pass as Walse's daughter or Siegmund's twin; Regine Crespin as Brunnhilde sounds soft and pretty, lacking the vocal metal a valkyrie should have; Jess Thomas's voice is too soft-grained for Siegfried. In Karajan's _Parsifal,_ one of his better Wagner recordings overall, the critical roles of Parsifal and Kundry are taken by mediocre singers, which for me rule out what would otherwise be a competitive recording. The soprano who sings Kundry (Dunja something) sings Senta in Karajan's _Hollander_ and is one of two reasons not to listen to it, the other being Karajan's overwrought conducting/engineering.

The only Karajan Wagner I own is his 1950's live _Tristan_ from Bayreuth, which is superbly led and which I'd listen to more often if I could stand Martha Modl for more than about 15 minutes.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Of all the Rings I have, I still prefer Karajan's. In the theater, an approach like Solti's would certainly be exciting, but for home listening - and repeated listening - Karajan is tops for me. The orchestral playing is breathtaking and thrilling. I'm keeping my Solti, Bohm, Levine, Boulez, Janowski and a few others. The first Ring I owned was Solti, Karajan came later but I was deeply impressed with it from the start.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

imho his Ring is excellent. His EMI Tristan is very good. Needs a good remaster.
His EMI Meistersinger is very good. His DG Parsifal is excellent.
I even like his EMI Lohengrin.
His Dutchman i havent heard nor his live Tannhauser.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

I have Karajan's Ring. It's actually the only one I have. I also have his EMI Tristan (agree it needs a remaster - there are some very odd balances), his Bayreuth Meistersinger and his Parsifal.

I'm not a Wagner expert, but I like them all.


----------



## ALT (Mar 1, 2021)

Hear the phenomenal manner in which he conducts this _Liebestod_. Martha Mödl sings.


----------



## MAS (Apr 15, 2015)

I’d take the Solti, the Böhm, and the Furtwängler La Scala over Karajan‘s.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Karajan was very devoted to opera and I think he was generally a stunning opera conductor. I certainly have a soft spot for Karajan's Wagner recordings and his _Die Walküre_ was the recording that first got me into opera (and, of course, Wagner). There is also the aesthetically immensely well realised DVD recording of Karajan's _Das Rheingold_. If only someone staged the Ring as Karajan did, it would be wonderful! Not to mention his Bayreuth _Tristan_ and other live recordings from Bayreuth and elsewhere. I think his studio _Tristan_ would have been an unbelievable achievement had Vickers been paired with someone else (imagine Vickers and Nilsson together - would have been SO amazing).

In general, I really like Karajan's take of Wagner but that might be connected with the fact that I like Karajan's conducting style in overall. He undoubtedly had his own unique way of conducting and he certainly didn't change that extensively when he was conducting opera.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

MAS said:


> I'd take the Solti, the Böhm, and the Furtwängler La Scala over Karajan's.


I usually avoid Solti like the plague. I find most of his opera recordings too full of surface swagger and splash. I don't like his "orgasm in every bar" approach (not my description, but I wish it was). In virtually every one of the operas both he and Karajan recorded, I would prefer Karajan, whether it be *Aida* or *Salome*, *La Boheme* or _The Ring_.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I usually avoid Solti like the plague. I find most of his opera recordings too full of surface swagger and splash. I don't like his "orgasm in every bar" approach (not my description, but I wish it was). In virtually every one of the operas both he and Karajan recorded, I would prefer Karajan, whether it be *Aida* or *Salome*, *La Boheme* or _The Ring_.


As said, Solti was chosen by Culshaw because it fitted the producers super-stereo conception of the Ring which they dubbed 'SonicStage'. The very aggressiveness and sheer excitement fitted the stereo effects, added to which, Solti was a consummate professional in the studio and at that stage in his career Culshaw could rely on him to co-operate the the producer's vision. This is not a criticism but just how things were. Obviously with the Karajan ring it was HvK's vision even though some of the casting choices were forced upon him.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I usually avoid Solti like the plague. I find most of his opera recordings too full of surface swagger and splash. I don't like his "orgasm in every bar" approach (not my description, but I wish it was). In virtually every one of the operas both he and Karajan recorded, I would prefer Karajan, whether it be *Aida* or *Salome*, *La Boheme* or _The Ring_.


I know it isn't likely to happen but if you ever get a chance to hear either Solti's 1965 Covent Garden Ring or his Bayreuth 1983 Ring I think you would be surprised at how reined in he is. I think it had a lot to do with the fact he couldn't go over the same passage again and again so the spontaneity is there and he is less 'bombastic' (which is not a word I would use to describe his conducting style). I prefer dynamic and aggressive.  Like Karajan his studio work contrasted strongly with his live work.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> I know it isn't likely to happen but if you ever get a chance to hear either Solti's 1965 Covent Garden Ring or his Bayreuth 1983 Ring I think you would be surprised at how reined in he is. I think it had a lot to do with the fact he couldn't go over the same passage again and again so the spontaneity is there and he is less 'bombastic' (which is not a word I would use to describe his conducting style). I prefer dynamic and aggressive.  Like Karajan his studio work contrasted strongly with his live work.


I remember one biographer of Karajan saying that whatever HvK produced in the studio it was nothing compared with the frisson he could generate in a live performance. I have some of his live sets and they are worth hearing even in inferior sound for the sheer excitement. You wouldn't think it's the same conductor.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> In general I prefer Karajan's live recordings of opera, not only Wagner's, to his studio efforts, and his work from the 1950s as recorded by EMI to his later stuff for DG, which can sound too cultivated, focused too much on sensuous effect, and unspontaneous. I gather that he was increasingly insistent on having a hand in the engineering in the Berlin studios, and the sound balances and dynamic range on the recordings no doubt met with his approval. I tend not to like them; often, what sounds like a gargantuan string section, enhanced by strong reverberation, swamps everything, homogenizing Wagner's orchestral sound picture except when Karajan makes his brass section blare out over it. It sounds exaggerated, calculated and almost synthetic to me, not like people making music.


Yes, well stated...for me, that applies to many [most??] of vK's recordings that I've heard.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> I know it isn't likely to happen but if you ever get a chance to hear either Solti's 1965 Covent Garden Ring or his Bayreuth 1983 Ring I think you would be surprised at how reined in he is. I think it had a lot to do with the fact he couldn't go over the same passage again and again so the spontaneity is there and he is less 'bombastic' (which is not a word I would use to describe his conducting style). I prefer dynamic and aggressive.  Like Karajan his studio work contrasted strongly with his live work.


I do have a live Solti *Die Frau ohne Schatten* from Covent Garden. It's very loud. :devil:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I do have a live Solti *Die Frau ohne Schatten* from Covent Garden. It's very loud. :devil:


Possibly just turn the volume down?:lol:


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I've only ever heard Karajan's 'Ring Cycle' concerning Wagner. I'll go as far as to say it's possibly the best Orchestral Ring cycle as opposed to 'Operatic'.

If you like all things Orchestral then may I suggest you try Thielemann's Ring cycle. Not excellent, but truly Orchestral.


----------



## Music Snob (Nov 14, 2018)

Herbie’s 1984 and 1987 Tannhäuser Overtures are almost perfect, and his 1987 Tristan Prelude is perfect in my book. I hope that I have that much electricity running through my veins when I’m in my mid to late 70’s! Listen to just how tight the orchestra plays together especially on the first forte at the 16th measure of the 1987 Tristan prelude. Then the way Herbie conducts the overall arc of the prelude, well, some might say it is quite orgasmic- for lack of a better word.


His 1951 Bayreuth Meistersinger is equally phenomenal, although I prefer the 1952 Knappertsbusch, just slightly. Some of that has to do with the recording engineering. Herbie’s act 3 prelude is 7:30 long, about 30 seconds longer many other version. Fitting for that first year reopening after the war.

His studio Parsifal is one of the most highly overrated Parsifal’s in the catalogue, IMO. It has its moments but it is absolutely not as awesome as it so often said to be... for a number of reasons.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music Snob said:


> His studio Parsifal is one of the most highly overrated Parsifal's in the catalogue, IMO. It has its moments but it is absolutely not as awesome as it so often said to be... for a number of reasons.


I agree, but I'll play Devil's advocate (momentarily) and say that the performance/recording makes a lot of beautiful sounds in what is probably Wagner's most sensuously beautiful score, and that this is worth something. K's concern for creating a seductive tapestry of sheer sound seems to me more relevant in this opera than in many other things he conducts, even though, as usual, it sometimes draws too much attention to itself and comes at the expense of tension and momentum. Similarly, Kurt Moll and Jose van Dam sing more beautifully than many other exponents of their roles, and were it not for the mediocre Dunja Vejzovic and the sub-par Peter Hoffmann I'd consider the recording competitive in a rather large field. I've never felt the need to add it to my collection of _Parsifal_s (which is admittedly not large), but I would definitely hear it again, at least for several of Herbie's Magic Moments.

That said, we have an extraordinary live performance by Karajan recorded at the Vienna State Opera in 1961, with a generally superb cast including Hans Hotter, Eberhard Waechter, Christa Ludwig, Walter Berry and Fritz Uhl. The sound is fairly dismal, but it can't hide the excellence of the performance, to which Karajan brings a sense of drama not as apparent in his studio version. There are two anomalies, though: the tape of the opening scene of Act 1 was evidently destroyed, necessitating the splicing in of part of a different performance; and the role of Kundry is split between Christa Ludwig, who is magnificent in Act 2, and Elisabeth Hongen, who sounds thoroughly past her sell-by date in Act 1. I've never seen a good explanation for this curious casting decision.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I see the approaches of Karajan and Solti as being at opposite ends of a spectrum. Both have strengths and weaknesses but overall neither are ideal.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> I see the approaches of Karajan and Solti as being at opposite ends of a spectrum. Both have strengths and weaknesses but overall neither are ideal.


Interesting that these two gave us, within a few years of each other, our first complete stereo _Ring_ cycles.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

From what i've read, it seems to me that Culshaw played a large part in the Solti Ring. It wasn't all Solti's vision.
That might explain his different approaches in his live Rings.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Interesting that these two gave us, within a few years of each other, our first complete stereo _Ring_ cycles.


From what I am aware of, it would seem that Karajan doing a Ring after the success of Decca/Solti was inevitable. Anything he can do, I can do better :lol:


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm definitely a fan of Karajan's Wagner, including his studio Ring cycle. There's no ideal, ultimate version of _Der Ring_: it's simply not possible, and there isn't a single one I'd say represented anything close to an ideal, not that I've ever encountered. No, none from the monophonic era, either.

But I'll add this: anyone who says Karajan's Wagner is only glossy, smoothed over, or homogenized, or any of that insipid crap is clearly not listening.

The reality is indeed that Karajan's general orchestral sound is highly unified and polished-and that's hardly a bad thing at all, despite the weirdly persistent caviling! As if great playing were somehow inherently a liability. 

It means simply that Karajan had some of the best players in the world and inspired them to play with an extraordinary degree of fluency that is scarcely matched by anyone else, then or now.

But-and I can't emphasize this enough-it's totally not true to say it's _only_ unified and polished. Anyone who says that probably hasn't listened to Karajan's Wagner to any substantive degree, or is just trying to defend the objectively much poorer execution in their favorite recording as if such were an asset. Really it's typically just parroting some typically self-aggrandizing critic, one who just had to think of provocative things to say to get attention, as so many do.

In fact, with Karajan's Wagner, there is drama aplenty, with big accents and bold dynamics, explosive emotion and serenity of landscape, plenty of _staccato_ and _marcato_ as called upon as well as glorious _legato_, etc.

I will not say Karajan's Wagner is ideal, but again I do not think ideal Wagner is possible. I for one have serious questions about some elements of dramatic pacing in Karajan's Ring cycle, as an example, and no one has an ideal set of singers for it. (I don't even think it's possible to assemble a totally "ideal" set of singers for _Der Ring_ from any one generation.) But there are numerous great moments of beauty, excitement, explosive drama, just as you expect in any Ring cycle.

In short, of course it's worth adding Karajan's Wagner to any collection. It may or may not end up as your favorite (in fact, none of Karajan's Wagner is my no. 1 favorite for any specific opera or opera cycle), but I can't imagine-given a fair listening-that one wouldn't plenty to enjoy and find illuminating in any of Karajan's Wagner.

Of course it's the nature of a fan base to proclaim one's favorite as The Best[SUP]tm[/SUP] (and the more obscure, difficult to find, and out of mainstream media attention the better,) and to use ridiculously exaggerated terms to bash any and all rivals.

Yet I will say again: no, none of Karajan's Wagner is my favorite for any specific opera.

But I forking love it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Knorf said:


> I'm definitely a fan of Karajan's Wagner, including his studio Ring cycle. There's no ideal, ultimate version of _Der Ring_: it's simply not possible, and there isn't a single one I'd say represented anything close to an ideal, not that I've ever encountered. No, none from the monophonic era, either.
> 
> But I'll add this: anyone who says Karajan's Wagner is only glossy, smoothed over, or homogenized, or any of that insipid crap is clearly not listening.
> 
> ...


Has anyone said that "Karajan's Wagner is ONLY [my emphasis] glossy, smoothed over, or homogenized"? You make that claim twice in one post, along with several harsh disparagements of people you think are asserting this.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Knorf said:


> But I'll add this: anyone who says Karajan's Wagner is only glossy, smoothed over, or homogenized, or any of that insipid crap is clearly not listening.


True, just as Solti's is not all bombast.

Back in the 70's when I was buying the Ring operas, I ended chose Solti's Rheingold, Siegfried and Gotterdammerung but opted for Karajan's Walkure. Nowadays, for a variety of reasons, I don't go to either!


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Has anyone said that "Karajan's Wagner is ONLY [my emphasis] glossy, smoothed over, or homogenized"? You make that claim twice in one post, along with several harsh disparagements of people you think are asserting this.


Judge for yourself. But, yes.

Although, to be fair, reflexive Karajan bashing is something I've mainly witnessed here on Talk Classical.

Do you for some reason think I was referring to you? Why would you think so?



Becca said:


> True, just as Solti's is not all bombast.


Certainly not! I like Solti's Wagner quite a lot. His _Tannhäuser_ on Decca is probably my favorite, although I've not exhaustively explored available recordings.

I will always have a soft spot for the Boulez/Chereau Ring, recognizing there are some who find it problematic. I don't.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Knorf said:


> Although, to be fair, reflexive Karajan bashing is something I've mainly witnessed here on Talk Classical.
> 
> Do you for some reason think I was referring to you? Why would you think so?


I don't know who you're referring to, but since you've making your remarks here, and in an emphatic way, and now add something you call "reflexive" (meaning what?) "Karajan bashing," it's clear that you have someone here in your crosshairs. Isn't it more fair, and sufficient, to say what we like and don't like without characterizing those whose opinions differ from ours as somehow deluded or unreasonable? (By the way, it isn't only here that I've seen people criticize Karajan, and for exactly the same sorts of things. There's no TC anti-Karajan cabal.).

My own perspective on Karajan's Berlin/DG studio Wagner is easily stated. I value a sense of spontaneity, of organic naturalness, in music-making, and from these highly produced Karajan efforts I tend to get instead a feeling of calculated effect - often beautiful and impressive, but nonetheless a product of thought more than of feeling. I sense a conductor imposing a strongly characterized conception on the music, a conception that forces me too frequently to notice and think about it. I get quite the opposite from, say, Knappertsbusch, whose _Parsifal_ unfolds with unselfconscious naturalness, as if moved by some inevitable vital force of its own, never calling attention to any particular effect; the work simply sounds like what it is, not what someone is making of it, and it sounds simply like people making music, not people being made to make music. I consider this kind of self-effacement on the part of a conductor a high art in itself. Colin Davis once said that conducting an orchestra is like holding a bird in your hand. You don't want to grip it too tightly.

I could make other criticisms of Karajan, but this is probably essential.

As others have said, Karajan live could be a rather different animal, to which I would add that the characteristics that many note in his music-making developed over time and are not so conspicuous in his earlier work in the studio. Some of his EMI recordings of opera - for example his _Falstaff,_ his _Hansel and Gretel,_ his _Rosenkavalier,_ his _Trovatore_ - are considered the best we have by many people, an opinion with which I wouldn't argue.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Itullian said:


> From what i've read, it seems to me that Culshaw played a large part in the Solti Ring. It wasn't all Solti's vision.
> That might explain his different approaches in his live Rings.


From what I've read down the years, I'd say it was mainly Culshaw's Ring.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know who you're referring to, but since you've making your remarks here, and in an emphatic way, and now add something you call "reflexive" (meaning what?) "Karajan bashing," it's clear that you have someone here in your crosshairs. Isn't it more fair, and sufficient, to say what we like and don't like without characterizing those whose opinions differ from ours as somehow deluded or unreasonable? (By the way, it isn't only here that I've seen people criticize Karajan, and for exactly the same sorts of things. There's no TC anti-Karajan cabal.).
> 
> My own perspective on Karajan's Berlin/DG studio Wagner is easily stated. I value a sense of spontaneity, of organic naturalness, in music-making, and from these highly produced Karajan efforts I tend to get instead a feeling of calculated effect - often beautiful and impressive, but nonetheless a product of thought more than of feeling. I sense a conductor imposing a strongly characterized conception on the music, a conception that forces me too frequently to notice and think about it. I get quite the opposite from, say, Knappertsbusch, whose _Parsifal_ unfolds with unselfconscious naturalness, as if moved by some inevitable vital force of its own, never calling attention to any particular effect; the work simply sounds like what it is, not what someone is making of it, and it sounds simply like people making music, not people being made to make music. I consider this kind of self-effacement on the part of a conductor a high art in itself. Colin Davis once said that conducting an orchestra is like holding a bird in your hand. You don't want to grip it too tightly.
> 
> ...


One of the observations of Karajan down the years (and used as a criticism) is that in his conducting style, he trusts the orchestra too much and is over-light in his touch. Now that's rather interesting, given the often reflexive carping that people consciously or unconsciously go in for regarding Karajan.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

I don’t listen to much Wagner these days. I find it a bit of a bore after a time but I was intrigued to put on Karajan’s Siegfried and it is absolutely magnificent with the BPO playing absolute outstanding. I agree with Knopf when he says why on earth people criticise beautiful orchestral playing like this is quite extraordinary


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I think at times he's too much Toscanini and not enough Furtwangler.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Itullian said:


> I think at times he's too much Toscanini and not enough Furtwangler.


Of course, Toscanini was an outstanding Wagner conductor


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

JTS said:


> Of course, Toscanini was an outstanding Wagner conductor


I've heard his overtures and liked them ok. But not much else.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

JTS said:


> Of course, Toscanini was an outstanding Wagner conductor


Yes, absolutely, one of the best, so was Reiner...


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Subutai said:


> If you like all things Orchestral then may I suggest you try Thielemann's Ring cycle. Not excellent, but truly Orchestral.


Which one? I suspect that you're referring to the Vienna Ring issued by DG, which is atrociously cast but beautifully played. The earlier Bayreuth set is better sung.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Becca said:


> True, just as Solti's is not all bombast.


Solti isn't so much bombastic as he is episodic. Certain passages are spectacularly memorable, but sometimes the whole doesn't quite add up. It's no surprise that his best Wagner is probably Tannhauser, which lends itself to that episodicity. And I've been surprised at how tame he is in Haydn and Mozart orchestral music.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

wkasimer said:


> Solti......And I've been surprised at how tame he is in Haydn and Mozart orchestral music.


I enjoy Solti's Haydn and Mozart...quite muscular and energetic...heard him do several Haydn, Mozart symphonies live...very excellent....wish he recorded more.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

wkasimer said:


> Which one? I suspect that you're referring to the Vienna Ring issued by DG, which is atrociously cast but beautifully played. The earlier Bayreuth set is better sung.


Isn't the sound on the Vienna set supposed to be awful?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

wkasimer said:


> Solti isn't so much bombastic as he is episodic. Certain passages are spectacularly memorable, but sometimes the whole doesn't quite add up. It's no surprise that his best Wagner is probably Tannhauser, which lends itself to that episodicity. And I've been surprised at how tame he is in Haydn and Mozart orchestral music.


I like Solti's Meistersingers very much.
And his Lohengrin and his Dutchman
and his Parsifal


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

JTS said:


> Of course, Toscanini was an outstanding Wagner conductor


The BEST Tannhäuser (my favorite Wagner's opera) has been recorded from Toscanini. (personal opinion) Because of this, I agree with you.

(Wagner, for me, is MORE singing than conducting. The very long arias require good voices to be successful and not boring to death. The direction is also important but comes second)

(Karajan is the bomb. Solti is the suite romance. Böhm is the golden rule. Asahina is the hidden secret. Janowski is how Wagner ment to be, etc. How can I choose only one or two of them? I love EVERY director made good Wagner.)


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

I really only know Karajan's Ring. I wouldn't call it my favorite cycle, but I wouldn't want to be without it.

I don't love either Wotan very much, (Fischer-Diskau in Rheingold, and Thomas Stewart in Walkure), but Stewart fairs well enough as The Wanderer. 

Josephine Veasy is wonderful as Fricka.

The basically impossible role of Siegfried seems basically impossible for Jess Thomas to me, and it is probably the most criticized role in Karajan's Ring. It does have it's defenders though, "Siegfried is a young boy and the 'boyish' voice of Jess Thomas conveys this" is the defense. I don't love it, but choose for yourself. In Götterdämmerung Siegfried is sung by Helge Brillioth who is a good deal better than Thomas, but still, I can't imagine him being anyone's first choice.

I do like Zoltan Kelemen as Alberich. He has bite when needed, but also convinces when the role is more mellifluous.

Of the two Brunnhildes, Regine Crespin in Walkure, then Helga Dernesch for the final two dramas, it is no contest at all, there is something too soft in Crespin for me, but Dernesch is great. Still probably softer than many, but there is a depth and power that speaks to me quite clearly. Her high notes are wild sounding at times. Shocking, in the best sense of the word.

Karajan, as it says in the booklet, wanted his singers to sing like instrumentalists, and his instrumentalists to play like singers; a fanciful idea in some ways, but it comes across, at times. The generally "lighter" voices overall in the cast, let the orchestra maintain an chamber-music-like delicacy when needed that is absolutely beautiful. 

Veasy as wonderful as her performance came out, proclaimed that she would rather scrub floors than ever work with Karajan again, but she also had this to say:

"At the piano rehearsal, he said to me, 'very good. But I can hear your barlines'. No conductor had ever said that to me before. What Karajan's remark did was give me freedom, a wonderful freedom. (...) A chord at the end of a phrase isn't regimented; it will compliment the phrase. You knew with Karajan that he would pick up on the color and emotion of the phrase. He could reflect that in the orchestra. That is very stimulating to a singer."

Karajan's Ring is a mixed bag vocally, but extremely powerful and extremely beautiful orchestrally.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

It's true to say that Karajan preferred Orchestral beauty over the singing as exemplified by the only opera of his I own (not big on opera, but went through a Wagner phase), namely The Ring cycle, can't speak for the singers but the Orchestral playing is sublime, as were most things with Karajan.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

I too went through a Wagner phase (which I appear to have grown out of) but when I do indulge Karajan is my preference, at least in the Ring. I find Wagner’s orchestra vastly more interesting than his vocal lines and as Karajan’s singers are never less than adequate, and also tend to have beautiful voices, one can appreciate the glorious sound of the BPO.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Barbebleu said:


> My imprint Meistersinger was the Dresden Karajan so it looms large in my oeuvre. I have a soft spot for his ring cycle but the live Salzburg versions are much better than his studio stuff. In the main I feel that can be said of a good deal of Karajan's Wagner. Studio pretty good, live, so much more exciting.


Are those live recordings available on CD? And is there more than one label involved in issuing any of this stuff?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Are those live recordings available on CD? And is there more than one label involved in issuing any of this stuff?


I got my live Salzburg's from Opera Depot as downloads. They are available from OD as CDs.

https://operadepot.com/collections/...u-janowitz-vickers-karajan-salzburg-1967-1970

These were the premieres before he took them into the studio. 
It looks like the CDs are available at the moment. I would wait for a half price sale. Andy has them quite often.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Thanks for the link, Barb! I'd definitely pay half for that set. Right now I'm trying to decide whether to spend 40 dollars on Karajan's studio Ring, or the same amount for the big Barenboim box? I've been mulling it over for a couple days.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Are those live recordings available on CD?


Karajan's Salzburg RING was issued on CD on the Memories label, but these are long OOP.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

wkasimer said:


> Karajan's Salzburg RING was issued on CD on the Memories label, but these are long OOP.


It is getting tougher to find things at reasonable prices in the past couple years. The days of massive CD issues and re-issues is pretty much over. And I don't buy the big mega boxes, so I'm trying to scarf up all the cheap used stuff I can find. But looking around the web for an hour or so each day yields its rewards. I found a new copy of Kubelik's Meistersinger for under 14 dollars the other day.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

HenryPenfold said:


> One of the observations of Karajan down the years (and used as a criticism) is that in his conducting style, he trusts the orchestra too much and is over-light in his touch. Now that's rather interesting, given the often reflexive carping that people consciously or unconsciously go in for regarding Karajan.


Obviously for the critics everything Karajan did would be wrong, some carped on about he was too controlling and others the above. I had a recorded program of people giving their memories of conducting under him and they recalled in performance he allowed them a huge degree of freedom in the actual performance to play. One said it was like making chamber music. It was only if they got into difficulties that he would open his eyes and start really bringing them to heel. Of course when you're conducting the best musicians in the world you can do that


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Thanks for the link, Barb! I'd definitely pay half for that set. Right now I'm trying to decide whether to spend 40 dollars on Karajan's studio Ring, or the same amount for the big Barenboim box? I've been mulling it over for a couple days.


Decisions, decisions! You won't be disappointed with whichever decision you make. The Barenboim seems a steal if you don't already have any of his versions.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

JTS said:


> Obviously for the critics everything Karajan did would be wrong, some carped on about he was too controlling and others the above. I had a recorded program of people giving their memories of conducting under him and they recalled in performance he allowed them a huge degree of freedom in the actual performance to play. One said it was like making chamber music. It was only if they got into difficulties that he would open his eyes and start really bringing them to heel. Of course when you're conducting the best musicians in the world you can do that


I remember Jessye Norman being interviewed when she did a televised concert with him at which she sang Isolde's _Liebestod_. She was asked if she were considering singing the complete role and replied that, with Karajan conducting it might be possible, but not with anyone else.

You can also hear how he breathes with singers in his performances with Callas, especially in the live *Lucia di Lammermoor* from Berlin. Apparently she was furious with him for granting an encore of the sextet, which is just before her Mad Scene, so furious that she turned her back on him during the Mad Scene. Years later, when she met him again, she said to him, "What was it you did when I was so bitchy and turned my back on you in the Mad Scene? I knew you were clever. But the accompaniment was so perfect, I decided you were not only a genius, you were also a witch." "It was very simple," Karajan replied, " I watched your shoulders. When they went up I knew you were breathing in, and that was my cue for attack." Callas, being something of a witch herself, no doubt knew that was only part of the story.

The Mad Scene is indeed remarkable, Callas's singing so free, her phrasing so elastic she sounds as if she is etemporising on the spot, but Karajan is with her every step of the way, a perfect example of artists being completely at one with each other.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

starthrower said:


> Thanks for the link, Barb! I'd definitely pay half for that set. Right now I'm trying to decide whether to spend 40 dollars on Karajan's studio Ring, or the same amount for the big Barenboim box? I've been mulling it over for a couple days.


Why not buy both? :devil:


----------



## Daland2021 (Oct 19, 2021)

His Wagner leaves me rather cold. Except the late recording from Salzburg with Norman signing Liebestod...absolutely stunning. Never get tired of it. Probably the best rendition of it.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Tsaraslondon said:


> I remember Jessye Norman being interviewed when she did a televised concert with him at which she sang Isolde's _Liebestod_. She was asked if she were considering singing the complete role and replied that, with Karajan conducting it might be possible, but not with anyone else.
> 
> You can also hear how he breathes with singers in his performances with Callas, especially in the live *Lucia di Lammermoor* from Berlin. Apparently she was furious with him for granting an encore of the sextet, which is just before her Mad Scene, so furious that she turned her back on him during the Mad Scene. Years later, when she met him again, she said to him, "What was it you did when I was so bitchy and turned my back on you in the Mad Scene? I knew you were clever. But the accompaniment was so perfect, I decided you were not only a genius, you were also a witch." "It was very simple," Karajan replied, " I watched your shoulders. When they went up I knew you were breathing in, and that was my cue for attack." Callas, being something of a witch herself, no doubt knew that was only part of the story.
> 
> The Mad Scene is indeed remarkable, Callas's singing so free, her phrasing so elastic she sounds as if she is etemporising on the spot, but Karajan is with her every step of the way, a perfect example of artists being completely at one with each other.


Although I don't think Karajan was close to the best Wagner conductor, his ability to follow singers was downright inhuman. In every recording I've heard, live or studio, the orchestra is always in time with the singer, never too quiet so as to be drowned out, but never too loud so as to allow the singer to soar overtop; even with singers like Corelli who take extraordinary liberties with the score and often leave conductors in the dust.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

wkasimer said:


> Why not buy both? :devil:


All in due time. I usually feel uneasy about buying several versions of a huge work that requires hours and hours of listening time. It feels like nothing but an exercise in accumulation.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

starthrower said:


> All in due time. I usually feel uneasy about buying several versions of a huge work that requires hours and hours of listening time. It feels like nothing but an exercise in accumulation.


Back in my youth, I couldn't decide whether to buy Parsifal with Kna 1951 or with Kna 1962 - so I bought both on the same day.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

starthrower said:


> All in due time. I usually feel uneasy about buying several versions of a huge work that requires hours and hours of listening time. It feels like nothing but an exercise in accumulation.


Absolutely! One problem with CDs being so cheap second hand now is that one can accumulate multiple versions some of which are never played.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> Back in my youth, I couldn't decide whether to buy Parsifal with Kna 1951 or with Kna 1962 - so I bought both on the same day.


Haha. I was able to take the '51 out of a local library, so I felt the need to buy only the '62. I'm glad it wasn't the other way around, since at 16 I was already allergic to Martha Modl.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

wkasimer said:


> Back in my youth, I couldn't decide whether to buy Parsifal with Kna 1951 or with Kna 1962 - so I bought both on the same day.


I can't put into words and do justice to, how 'right' what you did was!


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Haha. I was able to take the '51 out of a local library, so I felt the need to buy only the '62. I'm glad it wasn't the other way around, since at 16 I was already allergic to Martha Modl.


A friend has a nut allergy. Misses out on so much. Allergies are such an unfair affliction, at least you didn't have it from birth and was able to enjoy Modl's glory-full voice until puberty.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HenryPenfold said:


> A friend has a nut allergy. Misses out on so much. Allergies are such an unfair affliction, at least you didn't have it from birth and was able to enjoy Modl's glory-full voice until puberty.


The child Woodduck was never sung to by the redoubtable Martha. But had he been, I suspect his reaction would have been exactly that of Parsifal.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The child Woodduck was never sung to by the redoubtable Martha. But had he been, I suspect his reaction would have been exactly that of Parsifal.


You're missing out


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HenryPenfold said:


> You're missing out


No more than I am for not enjoying professional wrestling. Missing out on things we don't enjoy seems an efficient use of time. I've been not enjoying Martha Modl for over half a century, and the time it's saved me is inestimable. My only regret is that her odd vocal production makes some otherwise enticing recordings less appealing.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> No more than I am for not enjoying professional wrestling. Missing out on things we don't enjoy seems an efficient use of time. I've been not enjoying Martha Modl for over half a century, and the time it's saved me is inestimable. My only regret is that her odd vocal production makes some otherwise enticing recordings less appealing.


You did well by not wasting time on professional wrestling - well done! You see, you can apply discretion :tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

HenryPenfold said:


> You did well by not wasting time on professional wrestling - well done! You see, you can apply discretion :tiphat:


Life requires it constantly, and more so as we age. At this stage listening to Modl would be one of the less deadly things I could do, but still I won't risk it till they come up with a vaccine.


----------



## Music Snob (Nov 14, 2018)

Moldl is a great Kundry, IMO. Her vocal characteristics match the personality of the character to me. Any other of her Wagnerian role I've heard her in are all but unlistenable to me. Karajan's incredible conducting of the 1952 Tristan is ruined by the lead roles for me.

On a side note I am the rare bird that can appreciate the Highest Art and Theories of the great masters of music especially those of Herr Wagner _and_ see the hilarity of Pro Wrestling- at least watching the promos on the World Wide Web from the 1980's. The Rick Rude/Roddy Piper feud is comedy gold... or something.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Life requires it constantly, and more so as we age. At this stage listening to Modl would be one of the less deadly things I could do, but still I won't risk it till they come up with a vaccine.


Don't risk it! Wait for the vaccine!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Life requires it constantly, and more so as we age. At this stage listening to Modl would be one of the less deadly things I could do, but still I won't risk it till they come up with a vaccine.


Poor Martha. She worked with a fair few serious Wagner conductors so she must have had some fans!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Barbebleu said:


> Poor Martha. She worked with a fair few serious Wagner conductors so she must have had some fans!


Modl was undoubtedly a superb artist in the theater. Some people thought that she was the finest Isolde they had ever seen. Whatever her vocal peculiarities, she, along with Varnay, was needed to sing Isolde and Brunnhilde during the hiatus between the retirement of Flagstad and Traubel and the arrival of Nilsson.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Barbebleu said:


> Poor Martha. She worked with a fair few serious Wagner conductors so she must have had some fans!


I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I generally prefer Mödl to Varnay.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> I wouldn't call myself a fan, but I generally prefer Mödl to Varnay.


I adore Varnay but I won't put her in any vocal contests on the forum as I think she has few fans here.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Seattleoperafan said:


> I adore Varnay but I won't put her in any vocal contests on the forum as I think she has few fans here.


I think that you'd be surprised, actually.

It might be interesting to do a "contest" between Mödl and Varnay in some passage from Brünnhilde's music.


----------



## Seattleoperafan (Mar 24, 2013)

wkasimer said:


> I think that you'd be surprised, actually.
> 
> It might be interesting to do a "contest" between Mödl and Varnay in some passage from Brünnhilde's music.


I'll think about it but maybe not Modl LOL


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

And here's Martha .....


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SanAntone said:


> And here's Martha .....


Modl's voice gives me the feeling of air being pressurized and forced through a hose, as if I could inflate my tires with her.

I apologize if the image haunts anyone's dreams.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Modl's voice gives me the feeling of air being pressurized and forced through a hose, as if I could inflate my tires with her.
> 
> I apologize if the image haunts anyone's dreams.


LOL, it made me laugh. You're so cruel.


----------



## Music Snob (Nov 14, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> And here's Martha .....


This is great, thank you for sharing.

I think what we need is a battle of the conductors in Wagner's music... especially Knappertsbusch vs. Furtwangler.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> And here's Martha .....


This set is for Furtwangler fans only. The two leading ladies were having a joint off-day and Frantz's singing gives little pleasure at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

JTS said:


> This set is for Furtwangler fans only. The two leading ladies were having a joint off-day and Frantz's singing gives little pleasure at all.


I tend to agree. Only Gottlob Frick is in his best voice. Klose remains a potent Fricka, though, even if past her prime.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

JTS said:


> This set is for Furtwangler fans only. The two leading ladies were having a joint off-day and Frantz's singing gives little pleasure at all.


Since it was a studio recording, presumably we're talking about more than just a single day. But I guess you can have an off-entire-recording-project.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I tend to agree. Only Gottlob Frick is in his best voice. Klose remains a potent Fricka, though, even if past her prime.


Suthaus is a pretty impressive Siegmund, too.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

wkasimer said:


> Suthaus is a pretty impressive Siegmund, too.


I agree with that. He was always a solid musician and interpreter. I suppose I just don't find his voice ingratiating, though it was strong and reliable and doesn't weird me out the way Modl's does. I'll take him over any of today's candidates for the role, possibly excepting Kaufmann.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I find it strange. Solti works for all Wagner except Tristan. And Karajan works for Tristan but not the rest of Wagner.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> I find it strange. Solti works for all Wagner except Tristan. And Karajan works for Tristan but not the rest of Wagner.


I think Solti agreed, and wanted to record _Tristan_ again. Many people object to his other Wagner too, but I find his _Ring_ valid and sometimes exciting, especially the _Gotterdammerung,_ which is splendidly cast and remains for me the best studio recording of the opera.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I think Solti agreed, and wanted to record _Tristan_ again. Many people object to his other Wagner too, but I find his _Ring_ valid and sometimes exciting, especially the _Gotterdammerung,_ which is splendidly cast and remains for me the best studio recording of the opera.


Not sure if more recordings would have helped. For lack of better words, I find Solti's conducting very "masculine", but _Tristan _calls for a more "feminine" touch.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Not sure if more recordings would have helped. For lack of better words, I find Solti's conducting very "masculine", but _Tristan _calls for a more "feminine" touch.


I know what you mean, but he did record a very good _Parsifal._


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

Couchie said:


> Not sure if more recordings would have helped. For lack of better words, I find Solti's conducting very "masculine", but _Tristan _calls for a more "feminine" touch.


Solti in his autobiography stated that he was less than happy with his Tristan. 'I was too inexperienced' he said. It is always seemed to me a pretty poor decision by Culshaw to choose Solti for that recording when he had Karajan available with (at the time) Karajan's theatre orchestra. Even with the less than ideal cast it may have been something special


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I'm late to this party, but I still haven't heard a better Tannhauser Overture than this one:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'm late to this party, but I still haven't heard a better Tannhauser Overture than this one:


I'm curious to know what you like about this performance. I have to say that on hearing it for the first time I find that it exemplifies exactly what I do _not_ like about Karajan's conducting, and not only his Wagner.

I believe it was Bruno Walter who pointed out that singers, when they phrase music, have to breathe, and that an orchestra, if it wishes to sing, must breathe too. Karajan disagrees; his orchestra never takes a breath! We hear a continuous, seamless stream of sound from start to finish, a smooth highway on which he drives a luxurious vehicle so streamlined, and with a suspension so perfectly cushioned, that we never feel the resistance of the air or the texture of the road. Using another analogy from transportation, the music rides a magic carpet beneath which all landmarks pass in a blur. There is no feel of gravity, of the struggle of organic life over inertia. It's all too easy.

Karajan's articulation of music is at the farthest extreme imaginable from the detailed phrasing, full of air spaces, applied to Baroque music by present day performers. More to the point, it's some distance away from the ways of such predecessors as Mengelberg, Walter, Klemperer, and Furtwangler, as well as other great Wagner interpreters such as Toscanini, who are not all alike but all of whom give more definition to individual phrases and allow musicians audibly to lift their bows and lower their mouthpieces in recognition of the fact that one thing has ended and another begun.

When I first heard Karajan's Beethoven, decades ago, I was struck by this same peculiar, unperturbed sleekness. I found it unnatural then and didn't like it. Nothing has changed for me. Honestly, I can't imagine Wagner liking Karajan's conducting of this overture.

Here is a performance that shows the sort of freedom and articulateness I imagine Wagner would have loved, given the thoughts expressed in his essay, "On Conducting," in which he emphasizes the importance of bringing out the individual character of different parts of the music through freedom of tempo. The sound isn't great, but the things we can hear are marvelously interesting:


----------

