# Gustav Leonhardt hates Beethoven's Ninth, What do you think of that?



## Moscow-Mahler

Ah, what a charming old man! Unfortunately, he only visited St-Petersburg, but not Moscow.

Gustav Leonhardt said in his interview some provokative things:

a) "Ode to Joy" is a quintessence of platitude. And all XIX century music is very primitive. French revolution killed the great music.
b) Karajan was a mediocre conductor, whose only advantage was a good viewside from the back
c) Harnocourt decided to became a conductor, because literature for a period cello is very narrow, and to be a conductor is a money for old rope.
d) He drives Alfa Romeo (founded in 1910) and hates BMW, because BWV was founded in 1913. So BWV is too modern.

http://www.openspace.ru/music_classic/events/details/30265/

What do you think of this thesises, esp. of "a"?


----------



## Delicious Manager

a) I doubt VERY much that Harnoncourt 'hates' Beethoven's Ninth! Your 'quote' refers only to the so-called 'Ode to Joy' (not actually the 'hymn's name) from the finale. The 'Ode to Joy' has become so unbearably over-played now that even I, as a HUGE admirer of Beethoven's Ninth, am bored to hear it. I suspect that this, and the rather cheesy words written by Schiller, are what Harnoncourt was referring to. He has recorded this work and performed it MANY times. It would not say much for Harnoncourt's musical integrity if he made money by performing a work he 'hates'.

b) I have always said that Karajan was an overrated, overpaid charlatan. I know I swim against the tide of convention by saying this, and I wouldn't pretend that Karajan didn't make some fine recordings (albeit very few), for me he has always been one of the early examples in classical music of 'image over substance'. I can't listen to most Karajan recordings; the way he smoothed-over all the rough edges of music (his _Rite of Spring_ is hardly 'pagan' and his _Mars_ from Holst's _The Planets_ sounds more like _Mars, the bringer of no good to young girls in dark alleyways_ than it does _Mars, the bringer of war_!).

c) Did he really say this? If so, one must REALLY start to doubt his sincerity and integrity.

d) What a foolish, stupid thing to say. I bet he doesn't drive a 1910 Alfa Romeo!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Thanks for the answer, but it is not Harnocourt, who hates "Ode to Joy", it is Leonhardt. He esp. hates "Ode to Joy", but he says, that the Ninth (as a whole) is: "The most vulgar piece in the history of music".

I agree that sometimes Karajan smoothed-over all the rough edges of music, but he was not the only one. In fact, I found e.g. his Mahler's Sixth to be much more rough-edged that for example Abbado's with Luzern or Jansons with Concergebouw.

No, I suppose, Leonhardt drives *modern* Alfa Romeo! But he chose that car brand, because the company was founded in 1910 and BMW in 1913.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Thanks for the answer, but it is not Harnocourt, who hates "Ode to Joy", it is Leonhardt. He esp. hates "Ode to Joy", but he says, that the Ninth (as a whole) is: "The most vulgar piece in the history of music".
> 
> I agree that sometimes Karajan smoothed-over all the rough edges of music, but he was not the only one. In fact, I found e.g. his Mahler's Sixth to be much more rough-edged that for example Abbado's with Luzern or Jansons with Concergebouw.
> 
> No, I suppose, Leonhardt drives *modern* Alfa Romeo! But he chose that car brand, because the company was founded in 1910 and BMW in 1913.


Sorry, I mis-typed Harnoncourt for Leonhardt (who HASN'T, of course, recorded or performed Beethoven's 9th). I am constantly aghast at anyone (especially musicians) who restrict themselves to such a narrow period of music. I listen to anything from the middle ages to yesterday afternoon! It keeps my musical mind curious and active.

I never much cared for Leonhardt anyway!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Yes, I think he is too radical in his _passeisme._


----------



## Amfibius

I can understand the Alfa Romeo over BMW bit. Those Beemers drive like German Toyotas! Give me an Alfa any day!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I can't comment on this, because in my city it is absolutely inappropriate to drive any car 
Maybe, his interview was just product-placement?


----------



## graaf

I agree that Karajan was overrated in many respects, but whoever calls all of 19th century music primitive, reduces Beethoven's Ninth to Ode to Joy (only in order to tehn bash it) and drives certain car out of some kind of spite, surely got up on the wrong side of bed. Or he is in business of shocking people, as with the following quote (from the link you posted, google translation from Russian):

_Conducting - the highest paid and the easiest way to play music. You do not need to think about how to take this or that note, do not need to spend years on the development of technology - the more bizarre gestures will be yours, the more you will be regarded as charismatic._

The guys is also a snob:

_Democracy - the main enemy of art. After the French Revolution, the average level of musical culture began to plummet._

Anyway, he might deliver good HIP performances, but his "opinions" are obviously not worth reading.


----------



## Delicious Manager

My opinion of Leonhardt is plummeting by the second!

Oooh! This seems to be my 1,000th post!


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

> Democracy - the main enemy of art.


Aha! I guess, he visited Russia just to give such a misanthropic interview! He decided: "If I give this interview in Russian, no one will read it".


----------



## World Violist

Yet another case of a human to be ignored contained in an artist worth hearing. I really don't care what Leonhardt's views are, but as this thread is up, they seem to line up somewhat with those of Glenn Gould (Beethoven's 9th is overrated, 19th century music as a whole is overrated and primitive--I really could care less about the political jargon).

And overall, he has a bit of a point if you look at it purely intellectually (something I'm not all for): Beethoven's 9th, in purely structural terms, is a complete mess, and only starts to make sense dramatically. And as for 19th century music overall, then no, there is very little in the way of intellectually compelling music. Composers looked more toward the emotional side of things and largely ignored contrapuntal detail; even Beethoven's most complex fugues are brutish and willful vis-a-vis the smooth and subtle Bach.

I'm not trying to defend Maestro Leonhardt; I just don't want to join into this shameless bashing.


----------



## graaf

World Violist said:


> And overall, he has a bit of a point if you look at it *purely intellectually* (something I'm not all for): Beethoven's 9th, in purely structural terms, is a complete mess, and only starts to make sense dramatically. And as for 19th century music overall, then no, there is very little in the way of *intellectually compelling* music. Composers looked more toward the emotional side of things and largely ignored contrapuntal detail; even Beethoven's most complex fugues are brutish and willful vis-a-vis the smooth and subtle Bach.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend Maestro Leonhardt; I just don't want to join into this shameless bashing.


If only you could also restrain from _pseudo intellectualizing_ as you can restrain from bashing, then you would get my vote.


----------



## Polednice

Call me dumb, but I prefer primitive (but complex) music (read: music close to human nature) over cerebral music (read: music that is too self-aware).

As for Leonhardt, he's quite obviously a moron.


----------



## bumtz

I think a lot of his comments are firmly tongue-in-cheek. And in his comment about Alfa Romeo vs. BMW he does not say the latter "is too modern". He says "these three years say a lot"]. He could have been alluding to the origins of BMW as a military jet builder during WWI. Or just fooling around with the interviewer. Keep in mind, what we have here is a translation of his (presumably English) interview to Russian with Moscow-Mahler providing a summary of it back in English. Ample room for misinterpretation, if you ask me. 

As for Beethoven's 9th, I am in agreement with Leonhardt.


----------



## World Violist

graaf said:


> If only you could also restrain from _pseudo intellectualizing_ as you can restrain from bashing, then you would get my vote.


Alright, replace "intellectual" with "structural." It's really more or less the same difference.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Yes, I'm sorry for giving you only a loose translation. Maybe he doesn't like BMW for building war jets during the WWI.

***
Are Brahms symphonies and quintets or the works of Mahler structurally primitive too? Had Bach in his motets an aim to excite and disturb his listerners?

Or is Galant music is contrapunctually complex? But Galant style was before the Revolution of 1789.


----------



## itywltmt

I've followed this thread and I can't help but think that this is simply the words of a blow-hard musician who may (or not) want to start something.

He seems to have succeded at that in this forum...

I respect everybody's right to an opinion, but enough already! It's clear we all _disagree _with thhe man's take...


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I suppose that romanticism ideology has some responsibility for the "bad romaticism" -mostly in poetry, not in music: fallacious oppostion between master and real artist or the cliche that the artist must have a turbulent life of Byron or Rimbaud. But still I don't think that for example Mallarme's or Ezra Pound verses were less complex then John Donne's.


----------



## Couchie

I sometimes get the vibe from such people that if you can't hack it as a physicist or mathematician, become a musician bent on mathemagical Bachian overintellectualism.


----------



## graaf

Couchie said:


> I sometimes get the vibe from such people that if you can't hack it as a physicist or mathematician, become a musician bent on mathemagical Bachian overintellectualism.


Finally someone said it. (so I don't have to! :devil: )

I don't know if you are into math, Couchie, but as someone who is, I was afraid that it might sound too arrogant if I said that.  Then again, who would have known that I'm into math in the first place, and I did have my share of arrogant posts anyway!


----------



## Ukko

World Violist said:


> Alright, replace "intellectual" with "structural." It's really more or less the same difference.


Especially since you are viewing the structure 'intellectually'.

Viewing the matter 'intellectually', the structure of music needs to relate to its emotional 'message', pure music being incapable of another kind.



BTW, why, intellectually, should I be concerned about Leonhardt's opinion of anything?


----------



## samurai

Delicious Manager said:


> My opinion of Leonhardt is plummeting by the second!
> 
> Oooh! This seems to be my 1,000th post!


DM, Congratulations! :tiphat: May there be many more posts forthcoming from you in future! :cheers:


----------



## Sid James

This kind of negative attitude to anything someone doesn't like is not a surprise. We get it around here on TC all the time. But coming from the mouth of a respected musician, this is very suss indeed.

It reminds me of a recent HIP concert here with a guest conductor from Canada. He was talking about how he was working with a pianist who had won the Chopin prize and was having trouble playing a period instrument from that composer's time (this pianist was used to playing Chopin on modern pianos, not the old ones). Anyway, this conductor was saying jokingly how this pianist found it hard to basically handle a period piano. The tone of his voice was one of making a joke at the expense of a musician who was of very high calibre (the pianist). He should have been positive because this pianist was getting of his backside and attempting to do something new to him, which is play his specialty composer, Chopin on a period piano. But this conductor was basically arrogant in his attitude, he wasn't complimenting his pianist colleague but doing the opposite (who wasn't there at the concert I was at, easy to diss someone half a world away).

In short, it's not only contemporary classical music lovers or musicians that have what are basically extreme or oddball views. So do a number of people in the HIP movement (my anecdote above is a further example to what Mr Leonhardt is saying). I have much more respect for musicians who can, for example play BOTH HIP and modern (eg. the cellist Jean-Guihen Queyras). But basically it's also about attitude, about not being stuck in niches or ruts. It's about being open minded and flexible...


----------



## samurai

@ Sid, Sorry to be so dense but what does the acronym *HIP* stand for? I know in America it means Health Insurance Plan, but I'm at sea when it comes to its usage in a musical context.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I'm always glad when someone in the classical world says something that shakes the dust off his corpse-like audience. Free thought doesn't have the disclaimer "as long as you get along with everyone else's ideas."


----------



## Sid James

samurai said:


> @ Sid, Sorry to be so dense but what does the acronym *HIP* stand for? I know in America it means Health Insurance Plan, but I'm at sea when it comes to its usage in a musical context.


HIP = Historically informed performance. Eg. usually on period instruments or copies of them, informed by latest research/scholarship of the conventions/practices of previous eras of classical music.


----------



## Ukko

Sid James said:


> [...]
> In short, it's not only contemporary classical music lovers or musicians that have what are basically extreme or oddball views. So do a number of people in the HIP movement (my anecdote above is a further example to what Mr Leonhardt is saying). I have much more respect for musicians who can, for example play BOTH HIP and modern (eg. the cellist Jean-Guihen Queyras). But basically it's also about attitude, about not being stuck in niches or ruts. It's about being open minded and flexible...


Yeah, good catch, Sid. Wispelwey, Demus and Peter Serkin are such musicians, and damn good at it too. Leonhardt is fairly well trapped in the 18th Century and previous, because of his instrument. There is nothing particularly _unacceptable_ about his dumping on Beethoven and the Romantics, but his bias is pretty obvious.


----------



## World Violist

Hilltroll72 said:


> BTW, why, intellectually, should I be concerned about Leonhardt's opinion of anything?


Good idea. Just enjoy the damn music. We get enough of people giving flack to others' opinions and activities in celebrity tabloids and "news" channels.


----------



## Sid James

^^ At least Mr Leonhardt has the courtesy to say these things within the confines of an interview, unlike the musician I saw virtually making fun of his colleague (behind his back, of course) in front of an audience at a concert for virtually not being born able to play a Chopin-era pianoforte or something. It seems HIP is no longer just an acronym but also a kind of religion, dogma, whatever. In the post-1945 era we had dogmas of "progress" & the "future" of music sprouted by some in the avant-garde, now it seems we have the reverse extreme conservatism and reactionary ideology to anything that's more recent than the pyramids...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> It seems HIP is no longer just an acronym but also a kind of religion, dogma, whatever.


That's an utterly preposterous statement, based on the fringe opinion of just one performer (Leonhardt). Considering you appear to have relatively little listening experience on HIP of Baroque and Classical music (you haven't listened to say Bach's _Brandenburgs_ complete or his _B Minor Mass_), you seem to have made a lot of extrapolation about HIP in general, and flexibility of listeners (but then you appear inflexible yourself, enough to avoid opera or works longer than 2 hours in duration in general for example). Sometimes I wonder about the apparent superficialness of some your posts regarding music. In this thread, you appear to link extreme conservatism with HIP to my bewidlerment.


----------



## Sid James

^^ That's a rant, you took me out of context (the sentences I said before & after that which you quoted is strongly linked to my point overall, esp. *the anecdote of my experience at that HIP concert I attended*).

[EDIT - I remember the name of that conductor who was making a virtual joke of his colleague, but I won't name names, I enjoyed his concert & as others say that's the main thing, too bad about the man's rubbish attitude]...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Sid James said:


> [EDIT - I remember the name of that conductor who was making a virtual joke of his colleague, but I won't name names, I enjoyed his concert & as others say that's the main thing, too bad about the man's rubbish attitude]...


Though to base that one incidence for the basis of your argument? I think that's amateurish. Pre-concert talks of HIP concerts I have attended (overseas and here) have never displayed any professional malevolence of any type, whether it was by Paul Dyer or John Eliot Gardiner.


----------



## Sid James

^^ It wasn't at a pre-concert talk, it was actually during the concert when this director was introducing the soloist, playing pianoforte. In doing that, the director snidely joked about the other pianist he had been working with recently, helping him play Chopin on a period instrument. In other words, modern pianists are nincompoops (even if they want to learn to play in HIP ways/instruments), period pianists are the "real deal." I've seen similar extreme opinions expressed on these online forums. One guy said HIP is good, modern is bad. Most people who are in the middle of the spectrum just say they are okay with both. As I said above, the musicians I admire the most play BOTH HIP and modern & they do both very well. I think you should maybe read what I'm writing than making assumptions.

Anyway, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush (I hope), except to say that any kind of "new" way of doing things will inevitably attract ideologues, groupies, people stuck in niches, narrow ways of thinking/seeing, etc. The black vs. white, right vs. wrong false dichotomies. Sadly, this must be part of human nature.

In any case, it's true what others have said, it's better to just enjoy the music than think too much about what musicians are saying...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

HIP is not particularly "new" anymore. It is introduced as part of standard curriculum of music training in many European music schools. Musicians will eventually specialise on particular repertoire, irrespective of HIP or not. The explosion of HIP recordings and concerts in the last decade or two bear testament to this. Unless one prefers to be inflexible enough to prefer big orchestra Handel made in the 1950s and 1960s.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Yes, HIP isn't "new," but "newer." I'm always thinking out aloud here, this is like a natural uncensored conversation for me. Wagner published an edition of Palestrina's _Stabat Mater_ in the 1870's. We can think of pioneering guys like him as the grand-daddys of HIP (& early-mid c20th musicians like Landowska, Bruggen, etc. as well)...


----------



## TxllxT

Gustav Leonhardt lives in an unheated canalhouse in the centre of Amsterdam among an exquisite collection of harpsichords (who need this unheat). I've read that even his own theological views are strictly kept in line with Bach's views. All what came after Bach is flat = liberal.


----------



## haydnfan

For an interview in Russian that most people read by throwing into the google translator meat grinder... there is alot of arrogance shown here in assuming that they aptly identified the tone of Leonhardt's replies.

Perhaps the worst are Sid's replies which stink of elitism and condescension against the HIP movement born largely out of ignorance and one concert experience. Sid you are always telling others that one should respect musicians as individuals, but now you are being hypocritical. Period style performances are not dogmatic, they are born out of an earnest desire to find better ways to perform the music of old. And there are so many approaches that HIPsters use that they don't all follow the same tenants. The scene is so vibrant and enthusiastically accepted that it has transformed the modern instrument scene as well. Instead of derisively shrugging them off, you should be embracing and discovering their style of performance instead. You are missing out on a big thing.


----------



## Ukko

Leapin' Lizards!

There is a fairly amazing amount of misapprehension, misreading, and general nit-picking going on in this thread. If I were a moderator I would close it on grounds of foolishness. Not being 'one o' them', I'll just do my best to ignore the thread.


----------



## Sid James

haydnfan said:


> ...Perhaps the worst are Sid's replies which stink of elitism and condescension against the HIP movement born largely out of ignorance and one concert experience. Sid you are always telling others that one should respect musicians as individuals, but now you are being hypocritical...


I hope I wasn't elitist in what I said, but I was wrong (I admit) in equating what that guest director said at the concert I attended with what Mr Leonhardt is saying (or apparently saying). I was just getting very emotional about this issue, I was not happy (actually balking big time) when at that concert this guy was jokingly saying how his pianist colleague had problems learning how to play a period instrument, having been trained in playing a modern instrument. He should have been more positive about how this pianist was getting off his backside & attempting to learn new things. The guy saying this must have been in his fifties himself - so HIP was only coming in when he was younger. Does he remember, I dare to ask, how it was for him to handle/play a period instrument when he was new to doing that? Isn't playing a modern instrument prerequisite for playing an old one? This is commonsense thinking, is it not?



> ...Period style performances are not dogmatic, they are born out of an earnest desire to find better ways to perform the music of old...


I agree, and I enjoy listening to period style playing, same as with modern playing.



> ...For an interview in Russian that most people read by throwing into the google translator meat grinder... there is alot of arrogance shown here in assuming that they aptly identified the tone of Leonhardt's replies....


I agree that things can easily get lost in translation.

But maybe member Moscow-Mahler (the OP) can clear this up. Or others who know what Mr Leonhardt has recorded. Eg. if he says he thinks music went down the gurgler after about 1789, what of things like Haydn's _London Symphonies_, his late piano trios, _The Creation_, etc. all composed from the 1790's onwards? Does Mr Leonhardt dislike those as well as Beethoven's _Symphony #9_? (or anything Beethoven himself did after 1789, he was only 19 then)...


----------



## haydnfan

Sorry I've been offline for days, but I like your reply Sid James. I wanted to say that Leonhardt spends most of his time with baroque era music, in particular he spends most of his time with Bach. He has recorded many works of Bach as both conductor and performer. He is also well known for his Byrd off of the top of my head. I confirmed with someone who speaks Russian fluently that he really did trash talk the 9th. He should show more respect for one of the greatest symphonies ever written, but I would very much like to read a very precise translation of what he said... it seemed to me as if he was trying to adopt a casual tone and not an aggressive one.


----------



## superhorn

Calling Karajan a "mediocre" conductor is like calling Einstein a mediocre physicist, 
Picasso a mediocre painter, Shakespeare a mediocre playwright, Beethoven a mediocre composer, and Tolstoy a mediocre novelist. 
If anything, it's so easy to underestimate him(or should I say as Dubya used to, "misunderestimate" him). Of course, like every conductor, he wasn't perfect, But at his best, he was the equal of any of the greatest conductors. 
He was without a doubt one of the alltime greatest advocates of composers such as Wagner, Bruckner, and Richard Strauss. His performances of Italian opera, although often highly unorthodox, could be downright revelatory in operas which had too often been led by hack Italian routiniers giving their umpteenth hum drum performances of Verdi and Puccini.
Under Karajan, the Berlin Philharmonic reached standards of excellence which have never been surpassed and rarely equaled 
He was highly versatile, and at home in everything from Mozart,Haydn, and Beethoven to a wide variety of 20th century composers.
Mediocre my foot !!!!!!


----------



## Sid James

haydnfan said:


> ...I wanted to say that Leonhardt spends most of his time with baroque era music, in particular he spends most of his time with Bach. He has recorded many works of Bach as both conductor and performer. He is also well known for his Byrd off of the top of my head...


Well it makes sense that he doesn't like Beethoven's 9th, he likes the older music, but I don't agree with him much that music after 1789 was not as good as before that. It was just different. Maybe Mr Leonhardt was just trying to draw attention to himself with these extreme comments (eg. any publicity is good publicity). I don't know, it doesn't make sense to me (esp. him dissing Mr Harnoncourt, who has done more diverse repertoire, rubbishing a fellow living musician is similar to what we here call "**** and tell").



superhorn said:


> Calling Karajan a "mediocre" conductor is like calling Einstein a mediocre physicist...Of course, like every conductor, he wasn't perfect, But at his best, he was the equal of any of the greatest conductors...


I agree, Karajan has been hit and miss for me, but that's nothing to do with his greatness or lack of it, just my taste, preference, etc. Having said that, Karajan was very much into the PR and image side of the game, he was quite conservative as director of the Salzburg Festival in turning it virtually into a museum piece rather than the vibrant scene of new music that it was between the wars, & he didn't conduct or promote any much, if any, new (post-1945) music. But despite these things, he was at a very high level of his art, that cannot be doubted...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree, Karajan has been hit and miss for me, but that's nothing to do with his greatness or lack of it, just my taste, preference, etc. Having said that, Karajan was very much into the PR and image side of the game, he was quite conservative as director of the Salzburg Festival in turning it virtually into a museum piece rather than the vibrant scene of new music that it was between the wars, & he didn't conduct or promote any much, if any, new (post-1945) music.

Nearly every conductor whose work I have admired has an area of focus where he or she is strongest. Karajan, born in Austria, was a champion of the German/Austrian Romantic and Post-Romantic tradition as well as opera. Karajan made recordings of Mozart, Bach, and Haydn (his _Creation_ is wonderful). Among the "modern" composers he recorded are Sibelius, Holst, Stravinsky, Debussy, Richard Strauss, Mahler, Bruckner, Bartok, Shostakovitch, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Prokofiev. His recording of Debussy's opera _Pelléas et Mélisande_ is one of the first great efforts... surprisingly good even. His recordings of Tchaikovsky's symphonies are great... but he seems to have had little interest in most Russian music. He recorded but a single Shostakovitch symphony, the 10th, even so this recording is absolutely stunning.

Beyond his efforts as an operatic conductor with Verdi and Puccini (often earlier in his career) the vast majority of his efforts involved the music of the great German/Austrian Romantic and Post-Romantic symphonists... and their heirs. He produced with the Berlin Philharmonic some of the finest recordings of the symphonies of Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner, and Sibelius as well as the tone poems and operas of Richard Strauss, the works of Wagner, and a number of works by Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern. At a time when the efforts of the Second Viennese School were still rarely recorded, he insisted that they be played... and played with as much polish and intensity as afforded Mahler or Beethoven. Strauss and Sibelius quite likely owe much to Karajan with regard to the promotion of their works.

Other composers may have been more active in promoting "newer" music... but honestly, this is often owed to a degree of nationalism. The Russian Modernists were quite often promoted by Russian conductors. French conductors promoted the work of Modern French composers. Leonard Berstein championed American music. English music was promoted by conductors such as Vernon Handley, Richard Hickox, Sir Thomas Beecham, John Barbirolli, Sir Adrian Boult, Simon Rattle, etc... You can't fault any conductor for focusing upon the music they feel the greatest affinity for.


----------



## Sid James

^^ I agree with the gist of what you say there, it is actually a great summary of von Karajan's career in terms of what he recorded. You definitely know your Karajan. What I'd add to the Shostakovich 10th symphony is that he also did a good disc of two of the Honegger symphonies. But it's a pity that generally he didn't cover that many composers who lived past 1945. Maybe this was not up to him, eg. the funding of new music by the record companies he was with throughout his career probably varied as they do today. 

I agree he did what he could in terms of recording, but I'm unhappy how he turned Salzburg into a museum after taking over after 1945, which in contrast between the wars was an international hotbed of new music with it's annual festival (eg. things by young composers like Tippett and Britten were premiered there and made them take off internationally to an extent). I have read that the only living composer Karajan put down on record a good deal of was a guy called Blacher, but he is said to be not too experimental and died in the 1970's anyway. But as I said, it must have been a matter of funding more than anything else. But I would say that guys like Boulez & Rattle have done their fair share to promote music of living composers (buy you're right, there is a national focus there, Boulez with the French & IRCAM, electronics based & Rattle with UK guys when he was at the helm in Birmingham City).

In any case, our dialogue here would be quite academic to Mr Leonhardt. I don't think he cares about these subtleties regarding von Karajan's legacy or lack thereof. Mr Leonhardt seems to be negative for reasons attached to simply not liking Karajan's style, stuff like that. Maybe his "slick" and "polished" image doesn't fit well with the Dutchman? I'm glad though that he didn't mention the war - eg. Karajan's Nazi past - that is sooooo cliche now, it's ancient history, we have to move on from that, really...


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Maybe Leonhardt was just trying to shock the interviewer. I prefer Reiner and Solti and Tennstedt in Richard Strauss, but tastes differ. Karajan was a great choice for Berliner Philharmoniker. Abbado never conducted (or at least recorded) Shostakovich with Berliners, he usually do not conduct Bruckner, but nobody hates him as much as Karajan. It is strange.


----------



## presto

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Gustav Leonhardt hates Beethoven's Ninth, What do you think of that?


Leonhardt is often quite an outspoken man and I believe he meant what he said if he didn't like the 9th.
I have to admit the work never seems to "hold together" as the other symphonies do. 
I find it a long rambling work with inspirational bits thrown in now and again but as a whole unsatisfying, pehaps that's what he was on about.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mr Leonhardt seems to be negative for reasons attached to simply not liking Karajan's style, stuff like that. Maybe his "slick" and "polished" image doesn't fit well with the Dutchman?

Karajan was a composer best suited to the big lush romantic orchestral sounds that are undoubtedly an anathema to Leonhardt... who seems to have less than the greatest admiration for not only Karajan... but the grand romantic composers as well. That's fine with me. We have any number of members who embrace a single musical era or genre over all others and this has worked well for Leonhardt in his career.


----------



## Sid James

^^ I agree it's not a problem if Mr Leonhardt doesn't like von Karajan's work. If he was criticising say the way Maestro Karajan treated the music of say Baroque or Classical Era composers, Mr Leonhardt would be standing on solid ground. He is an expert in this area. But if he made general comments, he was not right in doing that. & I completely don't understand why Mr Leonhardt is dissing his colleague in the early music/HIP realm, Mr Harnoncourt. It just doesn't make sense as I would be appreciative of a fellow musician promoting the newer ways of playing old repertoire. It seems Mr Leonhardt is just a sour puss and maybe it's a case of professional jealousy and spitefulness...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

:lol: Professional jealousy and spitefulness happen in all walks of professional life, whether one is a plumber, a haprsichordist or a media mogul.


----------



## Sid James

^^ Yes it is, but you don't "**** and tell," do you, or not at least in public. You say it to intimates only, that's as far as it goes. You don't blab about not liking someone or their work, or their hairstyle or whatever, in the national or international media. It's the muck-raking journalists and paparazzi that peddle this stuff, which is negative, not the likes of great musicians. In other words, if he actually said these things, Mr Leonhardt is lowering his status and also the others he is pissing and telling about. I believe Mr Harnoncourt is a man of integrity and will not **** and tell about Mr Leonhardt in return. You may be a great artist but not necessarily an admirable human being...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Yes, if I was Leonhardt, I would not have made public my opinions of other musicians and from that perspective, it shows he had little public skills in that situation (to say the least). But I'm not as bothered by it (as you appear to be) because these things happen all the time, from my local bakery to would-be prime ministers. Musicians and composers are fellow human beings, too; not gods, and shouldn't be viewed as Romanticised people. It's no different to what we read of what dead composers said of others that were their contemporaries or predecessors. Handel thought Gluck knew no more of counterpoint than Handel's cook.


----------



## Sid James

^^Maybe you're right & this is basically hearsay only. Or almost that. In any case, musicians, like athletes or politicians or other public figures, have to carry themselves well in the public eye. They're role models. Of course, they're far from perfect, they're human just like anyone else, as you observe. The fact is that people in my experience who tend to **** and tell are like old hat, they are dinosaurs, they are beyond relevancy. Like former Aussie Prime Ministers Fraser and Whitlam, I remember them talking negatively in a joint interview about later prime ministers Hawke and Keating. I think Keating said this was the talk of old men who do nothing much now but sit around and gossip. Mr Leonhardt appears to be the same, he is getting old and bitter and appears to like to knocking who he sees as competitors or even dead guys like von Karajan (is that kind of lame?) or music he doesn't like. I mean he should kind of get a life...


----------



## Polednice

I find no top-tier conductor as dry and tiresome as Karajan.


----------



## superhorn

Actually, Abbado has done a fair amount of Bruckner, recording the 1st,4th,7th and 9th.
switching between Berlin and Vienna. Years ago, I heard him do an unforgettable Bruckner 7 with the VPO in Carnegie hall. The audience applause and cheering was so loud I had to cover my ears !
I don't like the term HIP, because the term "historically informed" implies that those who don't use period instruments are "uninformed" about the music, which is not necessarily the case.
My reactions to HIP performances have been mixed. I've enjoyed some of them very much, but others have sounded downright awful, particularly the gut strings, which often sound horribly nasal,pinched and wheezing. Many HIP performances, in their zeal to rid their performances of anything "inauthentic" in style, have merely succeeded in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
And I'm skeptical about how "authentic" they really are, because no one has ever heard the way the music was actually performed in the past, and we have no way of knowing what long dead composers would have wanted or accepted when it comes to performing their music. 
HIP was an interesting idea in theory, but a mixed bag in reality. And I still have absolutely no objection to the use of modern instruments . They're still a valid way to perform the music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

i think thatsquite an outdated view of some the"zealous" types of HIp players probably more during the earlier days. todayhip is partof the music training of many music schools (both hip & standard),though professional musicians eventually tend to specialise on instruments/repertoire they have the stringes affinity with. in my experience, i rarely read of mud thrwoing from hip musicians today, and from the few fringe opinions we might read of, it's no different in silly intentions to say a fellow pianist throwing mud on lang-lang or whoeveer else.

i see much Classical music today done on modern instruments that are wonderfully played following hip. our own Australian chamber orchestra is a fine example, on modern instruments but hip (except their leader who plays a stradiviarius violin sponsored by a major local bank). your views in mu humble opinion are somewhat outdated in this respect. judging by the prevalence of cross over orchestras, even big name conductors who venture into HIP. Claudio abbado has done a recording of HIP Brandenburg, Sir Charles Mackkeras did a lot of hip, richard hickox etc.

as for not knowing what these piecesmay have sounded like, scholars/musiciologists do have confidence in their interpreation based on evidence, such as treaties written by baroque & classical composers, such as cpe bach's own book, quantz' on flute (he was Frederick's no.10, even Leopold Mozart's book on the art of violin playing, many ,many such written such advices exist. of course we can never be sure, as music performance should be a mercurial art of interpretation relevant totoday'saudiences. one of myfav.is a leetter by Handel ,writtenin English specifying the organ building reuquirment to recommenda C.Jennens.

sorry for poor english. away.


----------



## jdavid

Leonhardt is a harpsichordist and of the Bach Sacred Cantata set of the 199 Sacred Cantatas he jointly recorded with Harnoncourt in the 80's over a couple of years, Harnoncourt's selected cantatas prove to be vastly superior to Leonhardt's fussy, pinched, and stiff readings. Harnoncourt also gets all the best soloists, esp in the boy trebles and altos.


----------



## Meggie

Amfibius said:


> I can understand the Alfa Romeo over BMW bit. Those Beemers drive like German Toyotas! Give me an Alfa any day!


At least he never dropped all standards to drive a Porsche! Apocryphal perhaps but it seems that if he ever got lost driving he consulted the stars instead of his Nav! Very stylish. Dragged out my mint condition ex-FM radio vinyl copy of Leonhardt channelling CPE Bach this morning - so pure, such power (Concerto d-moll fur Cembalo/Concerto Es-dur fur Oboe, harmonia mundi, 1969). This YouTube (interview extract) of him playing Couperin surely demonstrates why he dedicated himself to the music of these composers: 




I found heaven via my Kev crossovers on a rainy day in the Blue Mountains...thank you Gustav Leonhardt.


----------



## MagneticGhost

What some people perceive as snide jokes, others perceive as good humoured banter.
And that's when they are in the same room.
A Russian Interview in print and then mangled through google translate.........

I don't know who this Leonhardt is. But I'm sure he was not being malevolent and surely all he said could be taken with a pinch of salt. 
1) Beethoven's 9th is obviously not going to be to everyone's tastes.
2) There is definitely an element of Emperor's New Clothes about some "Maestro" conductors.
3) Everyone has a favourite make of car. It is more entertaining to make a facile comment about modernity in an interview.


----------



## DavidA

Polednice said:


> I find no top-tier conductor as dry and tiresome as Karajan.


Dry? Karajan's critics always say he's too lush! You can't have it both ways!


----------



## Larkenfield

_a) "Ode to Joy" is a quintessence of platitude. And all XIX century music is very primitive. French revolution killed the great music._

Ode to Joy is not without its shortcomings, but Gustav Leonhardt's cynical opinion and abrupt dismissal of Beethoven's use of Schiller's poem as a "platitude" has been outvoted by a few million people over the last 200 years. Had Beethoven been able to hear, he might've been able to adjust the balance between the singers and orchestra better to bring Schiller's poem to life, something he'd been wanting to use since it was first published in 1785, almost 40 years to find the right setting. Let's just say that Beethoven and Schiller extended an invitation to Leonhardt to become a member of The Brotherhood of Man and Leonhardt unceremoniously turned it down so he could play "I Gotta Be Me" on his tinkling harpsichord or hulking pipe organ. It's also good to know that he would have preferred Louis the 16th to remain on the throne and that Napoleon would have never come to power so he could enjoy the greatness of pre-French Revolution music. Other than that, Leonhardt seemed to be a fine fellow.


----------



## Merl

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


----------

