# What do you think of Karajan's Mahler?



## flamencosketches

This will probably be the most controversial of these "____'s Mahler" threads. 

Herbert von Karajan was much maligned as a Mahlerian, and criticized for having come to the composer later in life than many. Some even go as far as suggesting that Karajan, as a former card-carrying member of the Nazi party, had resisted accepting and performing the music of a Jewish composer who was banned in Nazi Germany until the label—and the Zeitgeist—absolutely forced his hand into doing it. I personally don't buy this, but it's worth mentioning. 

Karajan left behind a good handful of Mahler recordings: Symphonies 4, 5, 6 & 9 (two recordings), Das Lied von der Erde (w/ Christa Ludwig & René Kollo), & the song cycles Rückert-Lieder & Kindertotenlieder (w/ Christa Ludwig). All are with the Berlin Philharmonic. Some of these are more acclaimed than others, and in particular it seems his live 9th is singled out for praise. 

So... what do you think of Karajan's Mahler? I'm still trying to make up my mind, but I have three CDs: the live 9th (which I really love), the 5th (which I'm more ambivalent about, but do like), & Das Lied von der Erde (which I've heard only once, but it's quite good). Personally, I think the oft-repeated comments that Karajan had zero grip on Mahler's individual idiom are, if not completely unfounded, a little overstated. He clearly had an affinity for this music, I think. 

If you like Karajan's Mahler, which is your favorite of his recordings? If you hate Karajan's Mahler, which is his biggest travesty? If you're more ambivalent, which are some that you like and some you dislike? If you haven't heard any of it, are you open to giving it a chance, or do you think that it would be a pointless exercise?

Really curious to see everyone's comments...


----------



## Art Rock

For me, the 9th and Das Lied von der Erde are excellent.
I don't particularly like his 4th, which for me is too slow (taking over an hour) and has Edith Mathis for the fourth movement, which for me does not work too well either. 
I have not heard the 5th and 6th.


----------



## MaxKellerman

flamencosketches said:


> This will probably be the most controversial of these "____'s Mahler" threads.


If it's anything like past incarnations here on TC, it shouldn't disappoint. :lol:

Karjan's Mahler 6

Worst Mahler Conductor


----------



## flamencosketches

Art Rock said:


> For me, the 9th and Das Lied von der Erde are excellent.
> I don't particularly like his 4th, which for me is too slow (taking over an hour) and has Edith Mathis for the fourth movement, which for me does not work too well either.
> I have not heard the 5th and 6th.


Wow, I've never heard of a 4th going over an hour. I'm not sure I would like it either, but now I'm intrigued. Though I'm picky about the singer in the finale (for example, Schwarzkopf spoils Klemperer's 4th for me, though I recognize her great skill).


----------



## Ekim the Insubordinate

I just checked. I don't have a single one of his Mahler recordings. I would be open to give them a try, though. I enjoy many of his recordings otherwise.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I think the 9th is certainly one of his better overall recordings of anything, though there is still that certain feeling of stiffness that fails to fully deliver the epic psychological narrative for me. I don’t hate the 5th as much as many seem to - I think the orchestral polish and cohesion work well in the funeral march, and the Adagietto is a fluffy indulgence. I get annoyed, though, when he treats every climax the same and things start sounding homogeneous without an overall grasp on the structure. Have not heard his even more controversial 6th. The one I wish he’d have recorded is the 7th - I can only imagine how his ravishing orchestral sound would deliver the goods in that symphony which is more about color and creativity than structure.


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think the 9th is certainly one of his better overall recordings of anything, though there is still that certain feeling of stiffness that fails to fully deliver the epic psychological narrative for me. I don't hate the 5th as much as many seem to - I think the orchestral polish and cohesion work well in the funeral march, and the Adagietto is a fluffy indulgence. I get annoyed, though, when he treats every climax the same and things start sounding homogeneous without an overall grasp on the structure. Have not heard his even more controversial 6th. The one I wish he'd have recorded is the 7th - I can only imagine how his ravishing orchestral sound would deliver the goods in that symphony which is more about color and creativity than structure.


Interesting, I never thought about what a Karajan Mahler 7 would be like. I don't think it would be to my taste, if only because for me the 7th must require a certain attention to fine detail that I don't think is really in Karajan's wheelhouse. I'm sure the BPO would have done a great job with it though.


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> Interesting, I never thought about what a Karajan Mahler 7 would be like. I don't think it would be to my taste, if only because for me the 7th must require a certain attention to fine detail that I don't think is really in Karajan's wheelhouse. I'm sure the BPO would have done a great job with it though.


Well shows how much attention Karajan merits if we discuss recordings he never made of works he never conducted! :lol:


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> Well shows how much attention Karajan merits if we discuss recordings he never made of works he never conducted! :lol:


:lol: Point taken, it is a silly thing to discuss.

Do you have any opinions on Karajan's Mahler that you care to share?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I think the 9th is certainly one of his better overall recordings of anything, though there is still that certain feeling of stiffness that fails to fully deliver the epic psychological narrative for me. I don't hate the 5th as much as many seem to - I think the orchestral polish and cohesion work well in the funeral march, and the Adagietto is a fluffy indulgence. I get annoyed, though, when he treats every climax the same and things start sounding homogeneous without an overall grasp on the structure. Have not heard his even more controversial 6th. The one I wish he'd have recorded is the 7th - I can only imagine how his ravishing orchestral sound would deliver the goods in that symphony which is more about color and creativity than structure.


Agreed about the 9th. It's one of the most impressive orchestral recordings ever made, but if I want my emotions stirred I turn to Barbirolli.

I love Klemperer's 7th, full of beautiful dark color. It's a mercurial reading of a mercurial work.


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> :lol: Point taken, it is a silly thing to discuss.
> 
> Do you have any opinions on Karajan's Mahler that you care to share?


It's great what he recorded. Especially the live 9th


----------



## Kollwitz

The first two movements of Karajan's Mahler 5 are a bit of a guilty pleasure. There is a kind of reckless abandon in them that's gripping, even if to the detriment of the symphony as a whole. The trumpet blazes over the orchestra quite thrillingly in one of the early climaxes. The wildness isn't what I'd been led to expect from Karajan but is interesting. His take on the adagietto is a bit too slow for me and and the scherzo and finale don't grab me as much as other recordings. Mahler 5 was the first symphony I really fell in love with, and I listened to dozens of different recordings and did enjoy Karajan's approach, just as other atypical recordings like Wyn Morris' brought something to it. Much prefer Barshai, Shipway, Boulez, Gielen and others overall and I can see why people take against it.


----------



## annaw

It's been some time since I listened to his recordings but I remember really enjoying his recordings of 6th and 9th symphonies. I feel his conducting style in general was rather fit for Bruckner and other "heavy" composers from late Romantics. Pity he didn't start recording Mahler earlier, I think a full cycle would have been something very interesting.


----------



## Knorf

Most of my Mahler collecting was from a time when I was "taught" that I shouldn't like Karajan. And since then I've gravitated to other new recordings, from Abbado, Iván Fischer, and Boulez.

But I have the live Ninth and think it is excellent. I feel like I heard the Karajan Mahler Sixth and rejected it before finishing it. But I am curious about his _Das Lied von der Erde _in the least, which I've for sure never heard.

Considering how good (and vividly detailed) Karajan's _Don Quixote_ and _Also sprach Zarathustra _recordings are, I think it is wrong to say he would lack the attention to detail required by say Mahler 7.


----------



## flamencosketches

Knorf said:


> Most of my Mahler collecting was from a time when I was "taught" that I shouldn't like Karajan. And since then I've gravitated to other new recordings, from Abbado, Iván Fischer, and Boulez.
> 
> But I have the live Ninth and think it is excellent. I feel like I heard the Karajan Mahler Sixth and rejected it before finishing it. But I am curious about his _Das Lied von der Erde _in the least, which I've for sure never heard.
> 
> Considering how good (and vividly detailed) Karajan's _Don Quixote_ and _Also sprach Zarathustra _recordings are, I think it is wrong to say he would lack the attention to detail required by say Mahler 7.


Maybe attention to detail is not what the missing link would be, but picturing a Karajan Mahler 7th, something feels off to me. All pure speculation though, of course.

Another thing I've been curious about: for Karajan Mahler 9, do you prefer the live or studio? I've heard people side with both.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

The 5th sort of epitomizes my general reaction to Karajan. It is the shell of a perfect performance both in terms of pacing and sound. But it fails to engage my emotions.


----------



## Granate

I like his Mahler recordings more than I like to admit, especially his 4th and DLVDE, but I won't ever bury my strong hatred for his Live 9th. That recording is the reason why my interest in Mahler came a year too late after people here kept talking about a New Yorker called Lennie.

My opinion? He's one of the three conductors to avoid along Scherchen and Kaplan.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Granate said:


> I like his Mahler recordings more than I like to admit, especially his 4th and DLVDE, but I won't ever bury my strong hatred for his Live 9th. That recording is the reason why my interest in Mahler came a year too late after people here kept talking about a New Yorker called Lennie.
> 
> My opinion? He's one of the three conductors to avoid along Scherchen and Kaplan.


What don't you like about his live 9th?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Kollwitz said:


> The first two movements of Karajan's Mahler 5 are a bit of a guilty pleasure. There is a kind of reckless abandon in them that's gripping, even if to the detriment of the symphony as a whole. The trumpet blazes over the orchestra quite thrillingly in one of the early climaxes. The wildness isn't what I'd been led to expect from Karajan but is interesting. His take on the adagietto is a bit too slow for me and and the scherzo and finale don't grab me as much as other recordings. Mahler 5 was the first symphony I really fell in love with, and I listened to dozens of different recordings and did enjoy Karajan's approach, just as other atypical recordings like Wyn Morris' brought something to it. Much prefer Barshai, Shipway, Boulez, Gielen and others overall and I can see why people take against it.


I have the same reaction to the Karajan M5. I was really surprised to hear that sort of bombast from him since I was expecting something rather more "bottled-up" based off what I had known of him previously. Certainly the orchestral virtuosity is highly impressive and for that reason I do like it somewhat. But for some reason my patience with the performance wears out quickly. It's like he thinks the way to interpret Mahler is to go overboard on the spastic emotions (which can work, but within boundaries). I find the constant loud climaxes very grating in a similar way to how I find Solti's Mahler grating. I think he was trying to bowl people over with pure sound, which is not how Mahler works except, IMO, in the 7th, which is why I conjectured that he would be good in it.


----------



## VitellioScarpia

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have the same reaction to the Karajan M5. I was really surprised to hear that sort of bombast from him since I was expecting something rather more "bottled-up" based off what I had known of him previously. Certainly the orchestral virtuosity is highly impressive and for that reason I do like it somewhat. But for some reason my patience with the performance wears out quickly. It's like he thinks the way to interpret Mahler is to go overboard on the spastic emotions (which can work, but without boundaries). I find the constant loud climaxes very grating in a similar way to how I find Solti's Mahler grating. I think he was trying to bowl people over with pure sound, which is not how Mahler works except, IMO, in the 7th, which is why I conjectured that he would be good in it.


t
I am partial to M5 with Karajan. I like best his M9 -- not the studio but the live recording. However, HvK is not my first conductor to go for Mahler and a hell of a lot other music.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> Maybe attention to detail is not what the missing link would be, but picturing a Karajan Mahler 7th, something feels off to me. All pure speculation though, of course.


I'm not enough on board with Karajan in Mahler in general to picture it at all! :lol: But, I don't know. Maybe? He conducted Schönberg really well, and Mahler 7 might be the most Schönbergian symphony after Mahler 9. And, as we know, his Mahler 9 is superb.



> Another thing I've been curious about: for Karajan Mahler 9, do you prefer the live or studio? I've heard people side with both.


I have, too. The live recording has the greater frisson for me. >Shrug<


----------



## flamencosketches

OK, OK, fair points all around. I hereby rescind all hypothetical criticism of Karajan’s unrealized Mahler 7th.


----------



## mbhaub

I always thought that Karajan took up Mahler only because his rival, Leonard Bernstein, was being so successful with the composer all over Europe. That the two were in competition is well-known. Some conductors just don't respond to some composers, and Karajan had other musical loves at which he excelled. The 6th and 9th are tremendous recordings to me. The 4th and 5th I can do without. And whatever you do, don't blame his coming late to Mahler on any latent Nazism: he performed plenty of Mendelssohn and Schoenberg.


----------



## Becca

It might also have been that Barbirolli was successful with all the Mahler concerts he did with the BPO.


----------



## Kiki

Although hypothetical, I think a Karajan 7th is an interesting speculation. Think on the positive side, if it had the intensity of the live 9th, but keeping it in check with the emotionally-distancing attributes (in the good sense) of his DLVDE, plus the glorious sound and balance of the studio 9th, and the special beauty of the slow movement of his 6th, also the mesmerising quality of the scherzo from his 5th - then it could make a very interesting 7th. On top of that, a bit of the (perhaps strange) upbeat mood from the opening of his 6th wouldn't harm, as in Iván Fischer's "happy" finale of the 7th. Would it become a favourite? I've no idea, but I do enjoy a variety of 7th.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

LOL it’s hilarious how my hypothetical desire for a Karajan Mahler 7 has inspired so many conjectural thoughts in this thread:lol:


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> LOL it's hilarious how my hypothetical desire for a Karajan Mahler 7 has inspired so many conjectural thoughts in this thread:lol:


I mean, it kind of makes sense.


----------



## Merl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> LOL it's hilarious how my hypothetical desire for a Karajan Mahler 7 has inspired so many conjectural thoughts in this thread:lol:


I always wanted Karajan to make a Mahler 1st recording. I think he'd have done a really good one. It was well within the remit of the BPO as they did a great live recording of the symphony with Abbado (granted it was released after Karajan died) but he often performed the symphony with them as a guest conductor before then.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Karajan’s BPO predecessor, Furtwängler, never took to Mahler despite strong advocacy from contemporaries like Mengelberg, Walter, and Klemperer. I think I once read that he asked a friend if Mahler symphonies were really worth all the trouble. I’d like to think that like Karajan, given enough time and motivation Furtwängler would have eventually seen the light. What a glorious 9th he would have produced. His Lieder eines fahrenden gesellen with DFD was quite good.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsianhorn said:


> His Lieder eines fahrenden gesellen with DFD was quite good.


Agreed. Moreover, I think the hypothetical Furtwängler Mahler 7th would have blown the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7th right out of the water.


----------



## Knorf

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. Moreover, I think the hypothetical Furtwängler Mahler 7th would have blown the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7th right out of the water.


Not a chance. Mahler Symphonies require being able to hold a steady tempo for long stretches.


----------



## MrMeatScience

I've only heard Karajan's two Ninths, both of which I rate very very highly, with a slight preference for the studio recording these days (used to like the live one better). I had always bought into the standard wisdom that his Fifth and Sixth were not worth the discs they were pressed on, but being on lockdown I think I will give his other Mahler a listen with an open mind. Even if I think it's awful, I'll be able to say so from a place of experience rather than blindly following the general opinion, and that's worth something!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. Moreover, I think the hypothetical Furtwängler Mahler 7th would have blown the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7th right out of the water.


Well, that goes without saying. 

Fortunately we have Klemperer


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, that goes without saying.
> 
> Fortunately we have Klemperer


Of course! We can come to a judgement without even hearing them such is our perception! :lol:

Earlier in his career, apparently, Furtwängler had conducted Mahler's Third Symphony, but as Fischer-Dieskau said, he was no Mahler fan. Furtwängler thought that Mahler's First Symphony lost its way after the first three movements, though he did eventually gravitate to the Lieder eines fahrenden gesellen (which he recorded with Fischer-Dieskau) and to the Kindertotenlieder, which they performed together but never recorded. So dreams of a Furtwangler Mahler 7 are somewhat more distant than a Karajan Nahler 7


----------



## Heck148

Granate said:


> My opinion? He's one of the three conductors to avoid along Scherchen and Kaplan.


LOL!! Great minds think alike!! :lol:
[Tho, no big deal with Kaplan, with whom I'm not too familiar....]


----------



## Knorf

Bah, we don't need any of those dead has-beens.

There are a good half-dozen Mahler 7s since 1990 that make Klemperer's sound like amateur hour. And the best Mahler 7 by far from the early stereo recording era is Bernstein!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> So dreams of a Furtwangler Mahler 7 are somewhat more distant than a Karajan Nahler 7


Well, Furtwängler is 66 years dead, whereas Karajan is only 31 years dead. So I suppose you're right in that respect.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

There’s certainly a difference between being able to hold a steady tempo and deciding whether it would be appropriate for the music. For me, I get bored during Mahler’s super-long movements (like the first movement of the 3rd, the finale of the 6th, and the first movement of the 9th) when things are kept at a safe, steady tempo. It comes off as monotonous. The first 3rd I heard was Haitink, and I wanted to cry tears of boredom. Then I heard the earlier Bernstein/NY and it started to click. This is why Mahlerians like Bernstein, Barbirolli, and Kubelik excite me so much - they make every note mean something and they all have different but creative ways of doing it. And I don’t think Furtwangler would be considered one of the preeminent Wagner conductors of his day if he wasn’t able to keep a steady beat - that would have driven the singers crazy (although perhaps there is an anecdote on this, I don’t know).


----------



## WildThing

Its likely that Mahler conducting his own music would have sounded much closer to Furtwangler than to Karajan.


----------



## Knorf

WildThing said:


> Its likely that Mahler conducting his own music would have sounded much closer to Furtwangler than to Karajan.


You mean _if_ Furtwängler came around to showing the least sympathy towards Mahler's Symphonies as music, which he in real life never did? At least Karajan did _that_ much, and more. (By the way way, Karajan is hardly my preferred Mahler conductor, as should be apparent from other comments I've made in this thread.)


----------



## WildThing

Knorf said:


> You mean _if_ Furtwängler came around to showing the least sympathy towards Mahler's Symphonies as music, which he in real life never did?


Furtwangler did conduct some of Mahler's music despite not being sympathetic to it. But from descriptions we have of Mahler conducting, yes. Exactly. Steady tempos for long stretches is the last thing we'd probably expect.


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> And I don't think Furtwangler would be considered one of the preeminent Wagner conductors of his day if he wasn't able to keep a steady beat - that would have driven the singers crazy (although perhaps there is an anecdote on this, I don't know).


I seem to remember that there is; I'll see if I can find it. It's historical fact that Furtwängler's musical idiosyncrasies drove a lot of people crazy, quirky time-keeping being only one of many, such as a totally unique beat pattern. (If you could call it a pattern.)

Disclaimer: I do think many, if not most, of Furtwängler recordings are absolutely worth hearing, and some are riveting.

But this fanatic assumption, that you see around here and other similar fora, that Furtwängler is inherently superior in everything, reminds me more of Bill Swerski's Super Fans on SNL than anything approaching a discussion of music.

"It's mini Furty vs full-size Herbie in Mahler 7, quick, what are your predictions?" "Well, Furty never thought conducting a Mahler symphony was worth the effort, but my money's on Furty. 56-3." "I don't know; I think we'll have a real match. Furty 24, Herbie 16."

"Ok, ok. It's Furty against the Assembled Choir of Heavenly Angels." "The whole choir?" "Well, Saraphone, Jerebone: the whole nine yards." "Furty, but it's close."


----------



## Knorf

WildThing said:


> Furtwangler did conduct some of Mahler's despite not being sympathetic to it. But from descriptions we have of Mahler conducting, yes. Exactly. Steady tempos for long stretches is the last thing we'd probably expect.


Let's see a citation that Mahler didn't (or couldn't) keep steady tempos.

ETA: as far as I know, Furtwängler only conducted a few of Mahler's orchestral songs and nothing else. Is that incorrect?

(Also, if you lot are such fans, why can't you get the bloody umlaut right?)


----------



## WildThing

Knorf said:


> Let's see a citation that Mahler didn't (or couldn't) keep steady tempos.


Do you think Furtwangler couldn't have, if that's what he had wanted?


----------



## Knorf

WildThing said:


> Do you think Furtwangler couldn't have, if that's what he had wanted?


I mean, who knows?


----------



## Resurrexit

Knorf said:


> ETA: as far as I know, Furtwängler only conducted a few of Mahler's orchestral songs and nothing else. Is that incorrect?


I know Furtwangler conducted Mahler's third as well, off the top of my head.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Knorf said:


> (Also, if you lot are such fans, why can't you get the bloody umlaut right?)


Too lazy to keep copying and pasting. I guess I could install a shortcut on my keyboard.

I consider myself a "Furtwängler fan" because I personally connect with all the recordings of his I've heard. But I do hesitate to say this, since it's not like saying I'm a "fan" of a certain sports team and thus it is the only team I cheer for. The term "fan" is derogatory in this sense - I prefer "admirer" or "lover." I don't thumb my nose at other performances - I simply love the richness of interpretive possibilities out there, and for the most part do not think there is any sort of "superior" way to go about performing great music. I tend to go for Furtwängler when I want a multifaceted journey into the heart of a composition. But sometimes I want to hear luxurious orchestral perfection, and I listen to Karajan. Sometimes I want to hear every detail in sterling sound, so it's Reiner or Szell. Etc. etc. Sometimes I want to hear rich interpretations of a totally different sort. Bach is my favorite composer by quite a large margin, so I'm comfortable calling myself a "Bach lover." That doesn't mean I consider others inferior.


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> But I do hesitate to say this, since it's not like saying I'm a "fan" of a certain sports team and thus it is the only team I cheer for. The term "fan" is derogatory in this sense - I prefer "admirer" or "lover." I don't thumb my nose at other performances - I simply love the richness of interpretive possibilities out there, and for the most part do not think there is any sort of "superior" way to go about performing great music.


One of the reasons I have come to value and respect your opinion in a short time, is what you said right here. I agree. From a perspective like this, Furtwängler's music making was incredible (almost literally so) but might not be the only way. That I am 100% on board with.

I always say, in great music one performer can never have all of the answers.


----------



## Knorf

Resurrexit said:


> I know Furtwangler conducted Mahler's third as well, off the top of my head.


Ah, ok. I appreciate the correction. But he is on record saying he doubted that Mahler symphonies were "worth the effort."


----------



## flamencosketches

Resurrexit said:


> I know Furtwangler conducted Mahler's third as well, off the top of my head.


The third seems an odd place to dive in.

Are there any other conductors on record who _only_ conducted Mahler's 3rd, and none of his other symphonies?


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> .... the best Mahler 7 by far from the early stereo recording era is Bernstein!


To me, that is the prize of Bernstein's 1st complete Mahler set with NYPO..it is a terrific recording, esp when compared to some of its contemporaries!!..


----------



## Heck148

WildThing said:


> Its likely that Mahler conducting his own music would have sounded much closer to Furtwangler than to Karajan.


There's a piano roll clip of Mahler playing Mvt I of Sym #5....Sounds very much like Bruno Walter's recording....or, rather, Walter sounds much like Mahler.


----------



## WildThing

Heck148 said:


> There's a piano roll clip of Mahler playing Mvt I of Sym #5....Sounds very much like Bruno Walter's recording....or, rather, Walter sounds much like Mahler.


True. Though honestly, my comment about Mahler's conducting most likely being closer in spirit to Furtwangler's than to Karajan's wasn't intended as anything more than an observation, and I thought a rather uncontroversial one at that. In the early part of the 20th century, there was a general agreement about the need for flexibilty in performance, not only in overall tempo, but also in more detailed phrasing. The pianist Josef Lhevione was expressing a widespread view when he wrote, "Rhythym should not be thought of something dead. It is live, vital, elastic." The violinist Achille Rivarde similarly wrote "Rhythm is elascity of movement ...when the natrual rhythmic ebb and flow, the classic give-and-take of movement is resisted, the performance is characterized by a certain lifelessness and affects the listener as being spiritless. This elasticity of movement, this rhythm should be felt in every bar."

Of Mahler's own style, we know that as well as requiring frequent changes of tempo, he was rhythmically very flexible in his conducting. Admirers praised him for his "freedom of rhythm", detractors criticized his "arbitrary nuances" and his "seeking after effects". Violist and friend of Mahler's, Natalie Bauer-Lechner, wrote "Conducting, according to Mahler, should be a continual elimination of the bar, so that it retreats behin the melodic and rhythmic content, like the fabric of a Gobelin under the pattern of the embroidery." Mahler's piano accompaniments to his lieder were, according to conductor Robert Heger even freer than his conducting.


----------



## flamencosketches

Well, his piano roll recordings are extremely rhythmically free, including those where he plays the piano part to some of his Lieder. It almost sounds jazzy to my modern ears. Not sure what, if anything, this says about his conducting, but it is interesting.


----------



## Resurrexit

flamencosketches said:


> The third seems an odd place to dive in.
> 
> Are there any other conductors on record who _only_ conducted Mahler's 3rd, and none of his other symphonies?


I'm not sure that Furtwangler limited himself to the third, I was simply recalling this interview with Daniel Barenboim where Barenboim specifically mentions the third when he says "Furtwängler conducted quite a lot of Mahler, much more than one realises, in the early 30s and the 20s - the 3rd Symphony and other works." I'm sure the records are out there, somewhere, for anyone willing to do the digging. Given Furtwangler's statement already referenced in this thread about Mahler's first "falling apart after the first three movements", it's quite possible he may have conducted that score as well.

It's worth keeping in mind that before the 1960s, even conductors who were viewed as Mahler "specialists" like Walter and Klemperer didn't particularly like or understand, and therefore didn't perform/record all of Mahler's works.


----------



## flamencosketches

Resurrexit said:


> I'm not sure that Furtwangler limited himself to the third, I was simply recalling this interview with Daniel Barenboim where Barenboim specifically mentions the third when he says "Furtwängler conducted quite a lot of Mahler, much more than one realises, in the early 30s and the 20s - the 3rd Symphony and other works." I'm sure the records are out there, somewhere, for anyone willing to do the digging. Given Furtwangler's statement already referenced in this thread about Mahler's first "falling apart after the first three movements", it's quite possible he may have conducted that score as well.
> 
> It's worth keeping in mind that before the 1960s, even conductors who were viewed as Mahler "specialists" like Walter and Klemperer didn't particularly like or understand, and therefore didn't perform/record all of Mahler's works.


The closest example I can think of is Reiner, who came to Mahler later in life and only recorded the 4th and Dad Lied, both great.


----------



## Heck148

WildThing said:


> True. Though honestly, my comment about Mahler's conducting most likely being closer in spirit to Furtwangler's than to Karajan's wasn't intended as anything more than an observation, and I thought a rather uncontroversial one at that.


it's not controversial, per se, more conjectural.



> In the early part of the 20th century, there was a general agreement about the need for flexibilty in performance, not only in overall tempo, but also in more detailed phrasing. The pianist Josef Lhevione was expressing a widespread view when he wrote, "Rhythym should not be thought of something dead. It is live, vital, elastic." The violinist Achille Rivarde similarly wrote "Rhythm is elascity of movement ...when the natrual rhythmic ebb and flow, the classic give-and-take of movement is resisted, the performance is characterized by a certain lifelessness and affects the listener as being spiritless. This elasticity of movement, this rhythm should be felt in every bar."


Interesting - I read somewhere a Toscanini quote about rhythm and tempo that said essentially the exact same thing - that tempo is flexible, constantly fluctuating within the beat, within the phrase, across the bar line...."_Souple_" [supple], as the French would say...sometimes a little faster, sometimes a little slower, but centering around a basic pulse...I've observed that in Toscanini's performances to a great degree, many, many examples - He didn't engage in the huge tempo fluctuations as did Furtwangler, but the _suppleness_ is always there. Those that maintain that Toscanini [or Reiner, Szell, etc] were merely rigid, inflexible time-beaters are way off the mark, missing the message...


----------



## Knorf

Resurrexit said:


> I'm not sure that Furtwangler limited himself to the third, I was simply recalling this interview with Daniel Barenboim where Barenboim specifically mentions the third when he says "Furtwängler conducted quite a lot of Mahler, much more than one realises, in the early 30s and the 20s - the 3rd Symphony and other works." I'm sure the records are out there, somewhere, for anyone willing to do the digging. Given Furtwangler's statement already referenced in this thread about Mahler's first "falling apart after the first three movements", it's quite possible he may have conducted that score as well.


I did some digging. As far as I can tell, Barenboim's vague claims are not backed by anything at all. Note he didn't say symphonies besides the 3rd. He said, "But Furtwängler conducted quite a lot of Mahler, much more than one realises, in the early 30s and the 20s - the 3rd Symphony and other works." Other works? Symphonies or not?

It is known that Furtwängler performed some of the songs, more than once. If there's more, cursory digging revealed nothing at all.

I also could not find any backing for the story Furtwängler conducted the Third Symphony in public. If there is anything besides one very non-scholarly website reference on Grammophon that I could find, I'd be interested to see it.

If Furtwängler often conducted any Mahler aside from _Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen_, I conclude that it was not for a public concert, or there are no records of it. Either it didn't happen, or for some reason he or others took very careful care to conceal it.

Furtwängler however is on record late in his life, speaking with Dietrich Fischer Dieskau (with whom performed the songs) that he did not think Mahler's symphonies were "worth the effort."



> It's worth keeping in mind that before the 1960s, even conductors who were viewed as Mahler "specialists" like Walter and Klemperer didn't particularly like or understand, and therefore didn't perform/record all of Mahler's works.


I don't think anyone informed calls Walter or Klemperer "Mahler Specialists"; that's absurd. They just have a few decent recordings each.

A Mahler specialist would be someone like Wilhelm Mengelberg, Leonard Bernstein, or Raphael Kubelík.

Trying to suggest Furtwängler maybe did like Mahler, _despite his saying he didn't_, and therefore maybe he would have been a great Mahler conductor (unknowable!), despite no solid evidence besides vague comments from one conductor and one non-scholarly Internet commentator, is so very like those Da Bears Super Fans on SNL:

"Okay. Okay, by my watch, we're about thirteen minutes from concert time. As you are sure aware, Furty is getting ready for the big play-off against Lenny. Now, let go around the room for some predictions. Pat?" "Well, Lenny loved Mahler, and championed it his whole life, and made three much loved recorded sets of all of the symphonies, but I gotta go with Furty. Furty 72, Lenny 6."

"I mean, for example, which conductor would you rather have conduct Mahler: Lenny, or Da Furty? Pat?" "Furty!" "Yes, Furty!" "Furty was taller!"

"Alright. Furty vs. God in a golf match. Now, he's a good golfer." "Furty." "Furty." "Fur-ty!"


----------



## Heck148

flamencosketches said:


> The closest example I can think of is Reiner, who came to Mahler later in life and only recorded the 4th and Dad Lied, both great.


True, Reiner's Mahler efforts are outstanding...interesting about Reiner - in his early days in America - with Cincinnati, he performed some substantial Bruckner!! was recognized for his efforts by the Bruckner Society!! Phillip Hart's biography of Reiner lists him as conducting, at some point in his career - Mahler Syms #2, and 7, in addition to recording #4, and DLvDE...


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> [Toscanini] didn't engage in the huge tempo fluctuations as did Furtwangler, but the _suppleness_ is always there. Those that maintain that Toscanini [or Reiner, Szell, etc] were merely rigid, inflexible time-beaters are way off the mark, missing the message...


I totally agree with this! (Incidentally, this is also what I like about Boulez in Mahler symphonies, who of course saw Szell as something of a mentor.)

Karajan, of course, was also not just a time-beater.

Making a conjecture that Furtwängler might have become a good Mahler conductor, had he ever grown to like the music sufficiently to believe it was "worth the effort," no, that's not controversial.

The controversy, such as it is, and my teasing, emerged with the reflexive "Furtwängler would of course have been a superior Mahler conductor to Karajan." Forking hell, could you lot _be_ any more fanboyish? :lol:


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> The controversy, such as it is, and my teasing, emerged with the reflexive "Furtwängler would of course had been a superior Mahler conductor to Karajan." Forking hell, could you lot _be_ any more fanboyish? :lol:


it's total speculation, based on no evidence....


----------



## Resurrexit

Knorf said:


> I did some digging. As far as I can tell, Barenboim's vague claims are not backed by anything at all. Note he didn't say symphonies. It is known that Furtwängler performed some of the songs, more than once. If there's more, cursory digging revealed nothing at all.
> 
> I also could not find any backing for the story Furtwängler conducted the Third Symphony in public. If there is anything besides one very non-scholarly website reference on Grammophon that I could find, I'd be interested to see it.
> 
> If Furtwängler often conducted any Mahler aside from _Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen_, I conclude that it was not for a public concert, or there is no records of it. Either it didn't happen, or for some reason he or others took very careful care to conceal it.
> 
> Furtwängler however is on record late in his life, speaking with Dietrich Fischer Dieskau (with whom performed the songs) that he did not think Mahler's symphonies were "worth the effort."


Between Barenboim's comment, a Gramphone article stating the same thing, and an essay by the critic Michael Tanner who is very familiar with the work of Furtwangler, where Tanner states "Furtwängler, who only conducted any of the symphonies fairly early in his career, told his second wife that when he got to the end of the Third Symphony he felt as if he had slept with a meringue in his mouth", it seems most likely that he did -- unless these are just total fabrications. I suspect a Furtwangler biography or a historic performance record from Germany in the 1920s and 30s is the only way to clear it up decisively.



> I don't think anyone informed calls Walter or Klemperer "Mahler Specialists"; that's absurd. They just have a few decent recordings each.
> 
> A Mahler specialist would be someone like Wilhelm Mengelberg, Leonard Bernstein, or Raphael Kubelík.


I think the fact that they both knew, were early champions of Mahler's music, and in the case of Walter, closely worked with Mahler probably has something to do with it. But ok, whatever you say. A silly thing to argue about.



> Trying to suggest Furtwängler maybe did like Mahler, _despite his saying he didn't_, and therefore maybe he would have been a great Mahler conductor (unknowable!), despite no solid evidence besides vague comments from one conductor and one non-scholarly Internet commentator, is so very like those Da Bears Super Fans on SNL:


I'm not trying to suggest anythign of the sort, and haven't seen anyone on this thread do so either, so you seem to be engaging with a straw man. The whole discussion arose over a hypothetical comment about what a Karajan recording of Mahler's 7th would have sounded like, and perhaps he didn't record it because he didn't have any particular affinity for the symphony either!


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> it's total speculation, based on no evidence....


Until a few tried to concoct some evidence, that is, from the ephemeral sourcing of one off-the-cuff Barenboim quote and a Grammophon reviewer!

Anyway, I've clearly put way too much effort into something very silly. Best to stop. Fanboys gotta fanboy.

Fanboyism is fine, of course, but, you know: be honest about it! Also, best to reserve it for sports.

"DA BEARS!"

(Actually, the Chicago teams I like are the Cubs and the Blackhawks, but it would be a lie to say I was truly a fan of either. Now, Arsenal, on the other hand, by far the greatest Football Club of all time? I'm a fan.)


----------



## Knorf

Resurrexit said:


> I suspect a Furtwangler biography or a historic performance record from Germany in the 1920s and 30s is the only way to clear it up decisively.


Indeed. I don't have one handy. Darn. No, I don't think Barenboim and the Grammophon reviewer were inventing something wholesale, but I'm curious to find a better source. Your quote if anything supports the observation that Furtwängler disliked Mahler's symphonies.



> I think the fact that they both knew, were early champions of Mahler's music, and in the case of Walter, closely worked with Mahler


Neither Walter nor Klemperer championed Mahler like Mangelberg did.



> But ok, whatever you say. A silly thing to argue about.


Well, that's true. Guilty!



> I'm not trying to suggest anythign of the sort, and haven't seen anyone on this thread do so either...


Au contraire mon frère. Revisit posts #30, 33, 39. To be fair, I think #30 was at least half facetious. But it's hard to discern tone with only text.



> ...so you seem to be engaging with a straw man.


Incorrect. You all took the "Furtwängler would have been a superior Mahler conductor (to probably anyone) because reasons" and ran with it.



> The whole discussion arose over a hypothetical comment about what a Karajan recording of Mahler's 7th would have sounded like, and perhaps he didn't record it because he didn't have any particular affinity for the symphony either!


Could be. I don't know whether Karajan said anything on or off the record about No. 7.

OK. Stopping for real now. This has gotten very silly! Too silly! No, the whole premise is silly and it's very badly written...I'm not prepared to pursue my line of enquiry any further as I think this is getting too silly!


----------



## WildThing

Resurrexit said:


> I'm not trying to suggest anythign of the sort, and haven't seen anyone on this thread do so either


For my part, I can honestly say I don't how good Mahler's symphonies would have sounded under Furtwangler's baton, and really don't care. Possibly they would have been horrible as he didn't seem to care for them. I was really more interested in addressing whether a successful performance of Mahler's symphonies requires being able hold a steady tempo over long stretches, given what we know of performance history and changes in attitudes, descriptions of Mahler's own conducting and Mahler's thoughts on conducting, not to mention that Mahler considered Mengelberg to be the greatest interpreter of his music. Somewhere along the line things seem to have gotten contentious.


----------



## Knorf

WildThing said:


> Somewhere along the line things seem to have gotten contentious.


It's probably my fault for comparing Furtwängler fanboys to the SNL Swerski "DA BEARS!" Superfans.


----------



## DavidA

Just don't know why people are getting steamed up about Furtwangler's Mahler on a thread about Karajan's Mahler, especially when the former hardly conducted any! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu

Not to derail the thread but I wonder (I actually couldn’t care less) how Furtwängler would have conducted Harrison Birtwhistle’s Punch and Judy. :lol:


----------



## Knorf

DavidA said:


> Just don't know why people are getting steamed up about Furtwangler's Mahler on a thread about Karajan's Mahler, especially when the former hardly conducted any! :lol:


It probably seems steamier than it actually was, as Internet discussions often do.

Here's something we can agree on, maybe: it's a pity Furtwängler didn't grow to love Mahler's music and see fit to record some of the symphonies, and it's a pity Karajan didn't do a least a little more, since he might have done well with some of the others.

Of course Karajan-haters won't agree with the last phrase. You can't please everyone afterall.


----------



## DavidA

Barbebleu said:


> Not to derail the thread but I wonder (I actually couldn't care less) how Furtwängler would have conducted Harrison Birtwhistle's Punch and Judy. :lol:


As ,long as I wasn't around to hear it! :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Barbebleu said:


> Not to derail the thread but I wonder (I actually couldn't care less) how Furtwängler would have conducted Harrison Birtwhistle's Punch and Judy. :lol:


What if Furtwängler had conducted and recorded Birtwistle's incredible opera _Punch and Judy_?

The hypothetical Furtwängler _Punch and Judy_ would have blown the actually real David Atherton _Punch and Judy_ right out of the water! OBVIOUSLY.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Well, this has become an entertaining thread. 

IMO there is little doubt Furtwangler would be a better Mahler symphony conductor than Karajan. You can call that conjecture, but that's like saying that Tiger Woods beating me in tennis would be conjecture.

I have said that Karajan was naturally suited to Richard Strauss. That's a bit of a backhanded compliment. Strauss is not deep music. It's sensual. It's bombastic. But it's not deep.

Mahler? Karajan barely scratches the surface. He makes large, pretty sounds. There is little Mahlerian angst, emotion. The conductor that I believe Furtwangler would most resemble in Mahler is Jascha Horenstein, arguably the greatest Mahler interpreter on record. In fact I have said before that Horenstein's 1961 5th with Furtwangler's BPO sounds the most of any recording I have heard to what a Furtwangler Mahler symphony recording would sound like.

As to what Mahler works Furtwangler actually conducted in concert, I consulted my handy book of Furtwangler concert listings. (Doesn't everyone have one of these?)

1912 - Kindertotenlieder
1918 - Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen
1919 - Symphonies Nos. 3 & 4
1920 - Symphonies Nos. 2 & 3
1921 - Symphonies Nos. 1 & 2
1922 - Kindertotenlieder
1923 - Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen
1925 - Symphony No. 1
1929 - Symphony No. 1 
1932 - Symphony No. 4
1948 - Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen
1951 - Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen
1952 - Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen

Of course, he was not allowed to conduct Mahler from 1933-45.

Finally, as to Karajan's Mahler, I did an exhaustive Mahler survey a couple of years ago, and I found one Karajan recording to be essential (live 9th) and two to be worthy of additional listening (5th and 6th):

(♫ denotes an all-time great recording, ◄ denotes a top choice in good sound quality)

*Symphony No. 1 ('Titan')*

Bruno Walter (1939) (Music & Arts, IDIS) ♫ 
F. Charles Adler (Tahra) 
Sir John Barbirolli (Dutton) 
Leonard Bernstein (DG) ◄ 
Rafael Kubelik (DG)

Further listening: Bruno Walter (1954 live) (Urania), Dmitri Mitropoulos (1940) (Sony, Enterprise), Carlos Païta (Lodia), Ernest Borsamsky (Forgotten Records), Hermann Scherchen (MCA), Rafael Kubelik (1979) (Audite), Bruno Walter (1954 studio) (Sony), Jascha Horenstein (1970) (Unicorn), Georg Solti (1964) (Decca)

*Symphony No. 2 ('Resurrection')*

Sir John Barbirolli (1970) (EMI, Hunt, Arkadia, Living Stage) ♫ 
Otto Klemperer (1965) (EMI) 
Otto Klemperer (1962) (EMI) ◄ 
Zubin Mehta (Decca) 
Simon Rattle (EMI)

Further listening: Otto Klemperer (1951) (Decca, Guild, Archipel, Verona), Bruno Walter (1948 NYPO) (Bruno Walter Society, Music in the Mail), Hermann Scherchen (1959) (MCA), Leopold Stokowski (BBC), Leonard Bernstein (1963) (Sony), Bruno Walter (1957) (Music & Arts), Rafael Kubelik (DG), Claudio Abbado (1976) (DG), Georg Solti (1964) (Decca)

*Symphony No. 3*

F. Charles Adler (1952 studio) (Harmonia Mundi, Music & Arts) 
Jascha Horenstein (Unicorn) ◄ 
Sir John Barbirolli (1969) (BBC) 
Leonard Bernstein (Sony)

Further listening: Dmitri Mitropoulos (1960) (Tahra, ICA, Archipel), Claudio Abbado (1982) (DG), Bernhard Haitink (1966) (Philips), Hermann Scherchen (1950) (Tahra), Rafael Kubelik (Audite), James Levine (RCA)

*Symphony No. 4*

Jo Vincent/Willem Mengelberg (Philips, Grammofono, Dante Lys, Iron Needle) ♫ 
Heather Harper/Sir John Barbirolli (BBC) 
Hilde Güden/Bruno Walter (1955) (DG, Andromeda) 
Margaret Price/Jascha Horenstein (CfP) ◄

Further listening: Irmgard Seefried/Bruno Walter (1950) (MCA, Orfeo, Tahra), Irmgard Seefried/Bruno Walter (1953) (Tahra, Music & Arts), Emmy Loose/Paul Kletzki (EMI), Judith Raskin/George Szell (Sony), Kathleen Battle/Lorin Maazel (Sony), Elisabeth Schwarzkopf/Otto Klemperer (EMI), Lucia Popp/Klaus Tennstedt (EMI)

*Symphony No. 5*

Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ♫ ◄ 
Jascha Horenstein (Pristine) 
Frank Shipway (RPO) 
Rudolf Schwarz (Everest) 
Leonard Bernstein (DG)

Further listening: Václav Neumann (1967) (Philips, Brilliant Classics), Bruno Walter (Sony), Hermann Scherchen (1953) (Westminster), Dmitri Mitropoulos (Music & Arts), Hermann Scherchen (1962) (Stradivarius, Living Stage), Rafael Kubelik (1951) (Tahra), Rudolf Barshai (Brilliant Classics), James Levine (1978) (RCA), Klaus Tennstedt (1988), Claudio Abbado (DG), *Herbert von Karajan (DG)*

*Symphony No. 6*

Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ♫ ◄ 
Eduard van Beinum (Tahra) 
Leonard Bernstein (DG) 
Jascha Horenstein (1969) (BBC)

Further listening: Sir John Barbirolli (Testament), Dmitri Mitropoulos (1955) (Archipel, NYPO), Hermann Scherchen (1961) (Tahra), Leonard Bernstein (Sony), *Herbert von Karajan (DG)*, Thomas Sanderling (Real Sound)

*Symphony No. 7*

Otto Klemperer (EMI) ♫ ◄ 
Jascha Horenstein (Music & Arts, BBC) 
Hermann Scherchen (1965) (Music & Arts) 
Claudio Abbado (1984) (DG)

Further listening: Kirill Kondrashin (1975) (Melodiya), Sir John Barbirolli (BBC, Barbirolli Society), Leonard Bernstein (DG), Sir Simon Rattle (EMI), Daniel Barenboim (Warner)

*Symphony No. 8 ('Symphony of a thousand') *

Jascha Horenstein (BBC) ♫ 
Dmitri Mitropoulos (Orfeo, Music & Arts) 
Leonard Bernstein (DG) ◄ 
Georg Solti (Decca)

Further listening: Wyn Morris (Pickwick), Hermann Scherchen (Tahra), Leopold Stokowski (1950) (Archipel, United Classics), Eduard Flipse (RPO, Scribendum), Claudio Abbado (1995) (DG), Klaus Tennstedt (EMI), Giuseppe Sinopoli (DG)

*Symphony No. 9*

Sir John Barbirolli (1960) (IDIS, Archipel) ♫ 
Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ◄ 
Bruno Walter (EMI, Dutton) 
*Herbert von Karajan (1982) (DG)* 
Otto Klemperer (EMI) 
Jascha Horenstein (1966) (Music & Arts)

Further listening: Kirill Kondrashin (Melodiya), Karel Ancerl (Supraphon), Leonard Bernstein (1979) (DG), Sir Simon Rattle (2007) (EMI), Jascha Horenstein (1953) (Vox), Bernard Haitink (Philips), Bruno Walter (Sony), Carlo Maria Giulini (DG)

*Kindertotenlieder *

Kathleen Ferrier/Bruno Walter (EMI) ♫
Janet Baker/Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ◄
Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Rudolf Kempe (EMI)

Further listening: Kathleen Ferrier/Otto Klemperer (Decca), Janet Baker/Leonard Bernstein (Sony), Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Karl Böhm (DG), Kirsten Flagstad/Sir Adrian Boult (Decca), Christa Ludwig/André Vandernoot (EMI)

*Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen*

Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Wilhelm Furtwängler (EMI) 
Janet Baker/Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ◄

Further listening: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Rafael Kubelik (DG), Kirsten Flagstad/Sir Adrian Boult (Decca), Christa Ludwig/Sir Adrian Boult (EMI)

*Rückert-Lieder*

Janet Baker/Sir John Barbirolli (EMI) ◄

Further listening: Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Karl Böhm (DG), Christa Ludwig/Otto Klemperer (EMI)

*Das klagende Lied*

Gennadi Rozhdestvensky (IMP, ICA) ◄
Sir Simon Rattle (EMI)

Further listening: Wyn Morris (IMP, Nimbus), Riccardo Chailly (Decca)

*Des knaben Wunderhorn*

Felix Prohaska (Vanguard) ◄

Further listening: George Szell (EMI), Wyn Morris (IMP)

*Das Lied von der Erde 
*
Kathleen Ferrier/Julius Patzak/Bruno Walter (live) (Tahra, Andromeda) ♫ 
Kersten Thorborg/Carl Martin Ohman/Carl Schuricht (Minerva) 
Alfreda Hodgson/John Mitchinson/Jascha Horenstein (BBC) 
Janet Baker/Waldemar Kmentt/Rafael Kubelik (Audite) 
Christa Ludwig/Fritz Wunderlich/Otto Klemperer (EMI) ◄

Further listening: Kathleen Ferrier/Richard Lewis/Sir John Barbirolli (APR, Dutton), Kathleen Ferrier/Julius Patzak/Bruno Walter (Decca), Kersten Thorborg/Charles Kullmann/Bruno Walter (Dutton, Naxos), Janet Baker/John Mitchinson/Raymond Leppard (BBC), Maureen Forester/Richard Lewis/Bruno Walter (Music & Arts), Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau/Murray Dickie/Paul Kletzki (EMI), Brigitte Fassbaender/Francisco Arraiza/Carlo Maria Giulini (Testament), Nan Merriman/Ernt Haefliger/Eduard van Beinum (Philips), Janet Baker/James King/Bernhard Haitink (Philips)


----------



## Resurrexit

Knorf said:


> Your quote if anything supports the observation that Furtwängler disliked Mahler's symphonies.


Right, and I was never trying to argue otherwise. I've never believed differently, its clear by and large Furtwangler was not much of a fan. My comment to flamencosketches where I said "It's worth keeping in mind that before the 1960s, even conductors who were viewed as Mahler "specialists" like Walter and Klemperer didn't particularly like or understand, and therefore didn't perform/record all of Mahler's works" was in response to his question "Are there any other conductors on record who only conducted Mahler's 3rd, and none of his other symphonies?", but wasn't meant to suggest that Furtwangler secretly liked Mahler's music more than it is reported that he did, which is what it seems you took it as. And I stepped in to make a point, that based on my reading and knowledge Furtwangler had conducted at least the third symphony and quite possibly other several other works as well. This has now been backed up by Brahmsianhorn's findings.

Hence a major pitfall of internet discussion, the tendency or ability to read a common narrative into the posts of several different people who are having related converstaions discussing differerent points and making seperate observations.

But since it seems you now have a fresh target for the "Furrtwangler > Karajan" team, you can have at it. :tiphat:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

BTW, I’m listening right now to Karajan’s 1974 EMI Heldenleben which just arrived in the mail. It’s fantastic. Tough choice between this and Ormandy. I’m glad to have both!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Impressive list, Brahmsianhorn; I agree with many of your choices. I listened to Barbirolli’s 1st yesterday and was reminded of how Mahler requires that elemental, earthy passion that Sir John always brought to the table. Any thoughts on No. 10? It’s not a symphony that was taken up by most major Mahlerians so I’ve found the pickings pretty slim, even if I am still working on understanding what Mahler was trying to do in it.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Impressive list, Brahmsianhorn; I agree with many of your choices. I listened to Barbirolli's 1st yesterday and was reminded of how Mahler requires that elemental, earthy passion that Sir John always brought to the table. Any thoughts on No. 10? It's not a symphony that was taken up by most major Mahlerians so I've found the pickings pretty slim, even if I am still working on understanding what Mahler was trying to do in it.


I need to get around to the 10th. That's a hole in my listening experience.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm not keeping up with everything said here, but I just wanted to assert with fervent belief that the idea that Klemperer and Walter were _not_ Mahler specialists is absurd, and an insult to their legacy! They may not have recorded all of Mahler's symphonies, but I think most of us would agree that those they did are some of the greatest out there. Walter idolized Mahler and was one of the greatest champions of his music for a long time-to diminish the legacy of the man who premiered the 9th symphony and Das Lied von der Erde as someone who just has "a few decent recordings" is insanity. Very few, if any, conductors were in as deep and complete understanding of Mahler's idiom than Klemperer and especially Walter.

I also wanted to clarify that when I said Furtwängler would have made a better Mahler 7th than Karajan was a complete and total joke (that I regret making). Obviously, this is not something we can know and I certainly wouldn't condescend to conjecture about it. Furthermore, my personal opinion is that Furtwängler's conducting style is not something that would work to my taste in Mahler. Bruckner, yes; Brahms, yes; Mahler, no.

And with that, I don't want to see the F-word in my Karajan/Mahler thread anymore.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, this has become an entertaining thread.


Was it my references to Bill Swerski's Superfans that made it so? It was, right? You can say so.

Thank you very much for the comprehensive listing of Mahler conducted by the Conductor Who By Divine Right Surpasseth All Others But Shall Not Be Named Here. Barenboim is right; that was quite a lot more than I thought. Pity the former conductor never came to appreciate Mahler more.

I disagree with just about everything else you wrote, but I don't see any further point in arguing about it with you. Karajan's Mahler 9 at least is clearly far deeper and more sincerely Mahlerian at its core than you allow for.

As a side note: I don't see how "Mahler Specialist" can have any meaning if applied to conductors who called any of 1-9 "bad music," as both Klemperer and Walter did. That doesn't preclude them from being rightly acknowledged to have made some great Mahler recordings.

ETA: by the way, some of Mahler's major admirers, people like Alma Mahler and Anton Webern, were disappointed that Walter got to premiere _Das Lied von der Erde_ and the Ninth because they thought he didn't understand Mahler's music deeply and underplayed it rather a lot. Just saying.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

^ I agree with them


----------



## R3PL4Y

I like his Mahler 9 (the studio one). This symphony is in some ways more restrained than the earlier symphonies (although it has its moments) and Karajan has a surprising sensitivity to this


----------



## Heck148

R3PL4Y said:


> Mahler 9....This symphony is in some ways more restrained than the earlier symphonies....


Not if it's done right!!


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Well, this has become an entertaining thread.
> 
> IMO* there is little doubt Furtwangler would be a better Mahler symphony conductor than Karajan*. You can call that conjecture, but that's like saying that Tiger Woods beating me in tennis would be conjecture.
> 
> )


You say the thread is entertaining but please don't reduce it to farce by making statements like that! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> I'm not keeping up with everything said here, but I just wanted to assert with fervent belief that the idea that Klemperer and Walter were _not_ Mahler specialists is absurd, and an insult to their legacy! They may not have recorded all of Mahler's symphonies, but I think most of us would agree that those they did are some of the greatest out there. Walter idolized Mahler and was one of the greatest champions of his music for a long time-to diminish the legacy of the man who premiered the 9th symphony and Das Lied von der Erde as someone who just has "a few decent recordings" is insanity. *Very few, if any, conductors were in as deep and complete understanding of Mahler's idiom than Klemperer and especially Walter. *
> 
> I also wanted to clarify that when I said Furtwängler would have made a better Mahler 7th than Karajan was a complete and total joke (that I regret making). Obviously, this is not something we can know and I certainly wouldn't condescend to conjecture about it. Furthermore, my personal opinion is that Furtwängler's conducting style is not something that would work to my taste in Mahler. Bruckner, yes; Brahms, yes; Mahler, no.
> 
> And with that, I don't want to see the F-word in my Karajan/Mahler thread anymore.


The problem with this is that although the6 both knew Mahler the6 conducted him very differently so their understanding of his idiom was obviously different


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> The problem with this is that although the6 both knew Mahler the6 conducted him very differently so their understanding of his idiom was obviously different


Right. I don't see this as a problem. The fact that both of their diverse styles ultimately derive in part from experience with the man himself shows us that both of these sides are integral parts of the big picture.

@Knorf, I would love to read your source on that Webern testimony. He is one of the few composers I love as much as Mahler and I value his opinions greatly. And just for clarity's sake, which did Walter call "bad music"? I know he personally didn't jive with the 6th but I've never heard him call it bad. As for Klemperer, I know he trashed the 5th at least. Plenty of Mahler specialists including many "completists" have had bad words to say about the 8th, wrongheaded though they are, Haitink being a good example. Maybe this is a controversial opinion, but I don't think one must love every single thing he wrote to specialize in his music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Has anyone heard any Mahler from Carlos Kleiber? All I have heard is a recording of DLVDE (with good soloists - Christa Ludwig Waldemar Kmentt - and the Vienna Phil). It was not at all good. He seems to have had no feel for Mahler.


----------



## WildThing

Heck148 said:


> it's not controversial, per se, more conjectural.


Well of course there is conjecture involved, since we don't have any recordings of Mahler conducting his own symphonies to hear for ourselves. Which is why I qualified my statements with "it's likely" and "probably".

Having said that, I think it's still interesting to speculate. So pardon this digression.  It's worth keeping in mind that Furtwangler's art of conducting is considered to be very firmly a product the so-called "Germanic school of conducting" that goes back to Richard Wagner and Hans von Bulow obviously, but even before that there are testimonies that Beethoven conducted his music with a lot of freedom and tempo variation. Furtwangler learned the art of conducting from the likes of Felix Mottl (an associate of Wagner's) and Arthur Nikisch (who heard Wagner conduct and was profoundly influenced by the experience). Wagner famously wrote in his essay "On Conducting" that "We may consider it established that in classical music written in the later style _modification_ of tempo is a _sine qua non_."

In the early 20th century, the leading advocate of Wagner and Bulow's kind of flexibility was Mahler. He is reported to have said "All the most important things - the tempo, the total conception and structuring of a work - are almost impossible to pin down. For here we are concerned with something living and flowing that can never be the same even twice in succession. That is why metronome markings are inadequate and almost worthless; for unless the work is vulgarly ground out in barrel-organ style, the tempo will already have changed by the end of the second bar." And Mahler went rather beyond most of his contemporaries in his flexibility of tempo, as some of the remarks of hostile critics show. As one example, he apparently habitually started the Allegro of Beethoven's Leonora Overture No. 3 very slowly and only reached the main tempo at the forte repetition of the theme, and accelerated in a similar way at the start of the presto coda. And Mahler's tempo modifications not only included slowing down for passages of great significance, but also speeding up to pass over passages requring less emphasis. His friend Bauer-Leschner writes "Mahler told me...most conductors don't know how to distinguish what is unimportant from what is important. They put the same emphasis on everything, instead of passing lightly over what is less significant." Mahler also seems to have expected more fluctuation of tempo in his own music than is made explicit in his scores.

Anyways, I find it interesting at least. Either way, if we did have recordings of Mahler conducting I'm sure they would be roundly skewered on forums like this. :lol:


----------



## Merl

WildThing said:


> Well of course there is conjecture involved, since we don't have any recordings of Mahler conducting his own symphonies to hear for ourselves. Which is why I qualified my statements with "it's likely" and "probably".
> 
> Having said that, I think it's still interesting to speculate. So pardon this digression.  It's worth keeping in mind that Furtwangler's art of conducting is considered to be very firmly a product the so-called "Germanic school of conducting" that goes back to Richard Wagner and Hans von Bulow obviously, *but even before that there are testimonies that Beethoven conducted his music with a lot of freedom and tempo variation*. Furtwangler learned the art of conducting from the likes of Felix Mottl (an associate of Wagner's) and Arthur Nikisch (who heard Wagner conduct and was profoundly influenced by the experience). Wagner famously wrote in his essay "On Conducting" that "We may consider it established that in classical music written in the later style _modification_ of tempo is a _sine qua non_."


Sorry but I have to argue that such a view is anecdotal and not substantiated. Apologies that I've posted this before but most people don't realise how much Beethoven performances have slowed over the years. Weingartner based many of his tempi on instruction given to him by Liszt (who was prone to playing slower than Beethoven). He admitted that Beethoven played quickly and liked "an urgent tempo" (Czerny's quote). Bear in mind that Liszt was Czerny's pupil and Czerny knew Beethoven better than anyone. After a performance of the 9th symphony by Felix Mottl, in London in 1897, most British critics were appalled at how slow and distorted Mottl's Beethoven was. The Musical Times went further to say,

_"such a slow, lumbering adagio we have never heard. The heavenly melodies appeared dragged out of all proportion." _

The type of Beethoven that Mottl, his pupils and other Wagnerites produced is certainly not the type of performance heard in Beethoven's time (British critics initially baulked at such performances, terming such conductors" rubato faddists") . This is backed up by research from Saving, Young, Swift, Zander, Norrington and a host of others who have written on Beethoven performance. However, the 'new' tradition of conductors in Beethoven at the end of century in Central Europe was of a slower, differently phrased and distended performance. This 'new' approach to Beethoven became the new norm as it gained traction across Europe. Some leading British critics started to enjoy this approach, including influential ones. Bernard Shaw, for example, enjoyed this "freedom of tempo" approach but did concede that this involved "extravagant point-making and tempo distentions". It's not 'wrong' per se to interpret Beethoven that way, it's just a different way of performing it. Unfortunately we will never truly know for sure what Beethoven's pefect tempi were but we do know that it was very different from what followed. As far as Mahler's music is concerned it's more difficult to speculate on as he was known to conduct his own music very differently from night to night (which never endeared him to the VPO).


----------



## millionrainbows

Why should there be any doubt whatsoever that Karajan would be unsuited for Mahler?

After all, both men seemed to agree with each other in their identification with *"being German first and foremost,"* with both men willing to throw away any other affiliations they might have held: Mahler rejecting his Jewish heritage in his infamous letter to Alma, and Karajan eagerly joining-in when the Nazis took over. These things done in favor of being "cosmopolitan German artists."

Of course, both later paid the price.


----------



## Heck148

WildThing said:


> Either way, if we did have recordings of Mahler conducting I'm sure they would be roundly skewered on forums like this. :lol:


Well, we do have the sample of Mahler playing Sym #5/I on piano...this excerpt sounds much like Bruno Walter's recording with NYPO '47...the tempi are flexible, there is elasticity, but it does not sound "Furtwangler-ian", with extremes of tempo modification, sudden halts, etc...whether Mahler would have conducted the work in the same manner is open to conjecture, of course; but it is what we've got...it's "tangible" evidence.


----------



## WildThing

Merl said:


> Sorry but I have to argue that such a view is anecdotal and not substantiated. Apologies that I've posted this before but most people don't realise how much Beethoven performances have slowed over the years. Weingartner based many of his tempi on instruction given to him by Liszt (who was prone to playing slower than Beethoven). He admitted that Beethoven played quickly and liked "an urgent tempo" (Czerny's quote). Bear in mind that Liszt was Czerny's pupil and Czerny knew Beethoven better than anyone.


Saying Beethoven conducted with freedom and tempo variation is not necessarily contradictory to saying he also conducted quickly and urgently. It may not have sounded like Mottl, but it most likely didn't sound like Norrington either.


----------



## WildThing

Heck148 said:


> Well, we do have the sample of Mahler playing Sym #5/I on piano...this excerpt sounds much like Bruno Walter's recording with NYPO '47...the tempi are flexible, there is elasticity, but it does not sound "Furtwangler-ian", with extremes of tempo modification, sudden halts, etc...whether Mahler would have conducted the work in the same manner is open to conjecture, of course; but it is what we've got...it's "tangible" evidence.


Of course. We aren't in any real disagreement. I said probably closer in spirit to Furtwangler than to Karajan, not "just as Furtwangler sounds."


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^Knowing what I’ve read about the premieres of his symphonies, I don’t think the orchestras in Beethoven’s time had anywhere close to the capabilities of playing at, say, Gardiner’s virtuosic tempi. This doesn’t mean that Beethoven didn’t prefer faster tempi, but he may not have heard it that way. For me “fast” and “slow” take a backseat to how the music is interpreted. I enjoy both Toscanini and Barbirolli’s Eroicas. They both have equally valid notions of performance that touch me deep inside. But of course, we’re drifting off the topic of Mahler. I’m sorry for ever bringing up the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7, I had no idea how much digression would ensue!


----------



## MaxKellerman

Allegro Con Brio said:


> i'm sorry for ever bringing up the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7, I had no idea how much digression would ensue!


No need for apologies, except perhaps to the thread starter. It's made for some interesting reading and thoughtful discussion.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

People focus too much on speed. The issue is more as Heck alluded to - rhythmic flexibility and freedom. To me, performances of Beethoven that are performed in a strict tempo sound ridiculous. It strikes me as Beethoven being stuffed into someone else's aesthetic. It is antithetical to the spirit and the harmonic storyline of the music. Beethoven was both a performer and composer of expressive freedom, not pedantic discipline. It is inherent in the writing.

For me, a perfect example of a quintissential Beethoven performance, capturing exactly the spirit of Beethoven's writing, is this recording of the Kreutzer sonata by Huberman (a favorite soloist of Furtwangler's) and Friedman. They are telling the story of the work in as dramatic, personal, and freely expressive a way as possible. It is a rough reading, stretching the boundaries without regard for simple mechanical perfection. But it is precisely the freedom they employ that allows them to naturally follow the harmonic progression of the music. THAT is Beethoven. Not pedantic rubbish meant to squeeze Beethoven into someone else's agenda.


----------



## Merl

WildThing said:


> Saying Beethoven conducted with freedom and tempo variation is not necessarily contradictory to saying he also conducted quickly and urgently. It may not have sounded like Mottl, but it most likely didn't sound like Norrington either.


True, but I think that most would agree with Swift, Zander, Saving et al in that Norrington probably comes far closer to how Beethoven would have sounded in his time. I agree, though that playing with freedom and tempo variation is not necessarily contradictory or wrong (Beethoven gave his blessing for individuals to use "sensitive tempo rubato" in his piano sonatas) but if Czerny and Ries' assertions that (for his symphonic works) "the tempo is the body" (Czerny) and that "...he generally kept a strict tempo" (Ries) and focused more on dynamics then it would substantiate the claims of many opposed to tempo rubato. There a number of accounts of Mottl's Beethoven conducting that stress that this was "not the Beethoven we are used to" (Coates). Coates was interesting as he believed in "preserving the interpretive traditions of the 19th century" in Beethoven with minimal tempo rubato. As you say, we'll unfortunately never know but it always makes a great argument in these threads.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

We may not have the benefit of accurate historical reporting, but we have the music which serves as the ultimate guide. Playing Beethoven in a strict tempo is like a bull running through a china shop. It is ignoring the harmonic storyline. Again, would anyone consider it natural for Shakepeare to be read in a strict tempo with no inflections or pauses?

I saw a stark example of this contrast in my reaction to two recordings from Becca's blind Beethoven 7 taste test. Conductor C was Barenboim, a Furtwangler disciple. Conductor A was Petrenko, who quite obviously sees things differently.

"A - Straight-forward, meticulous, pedantic, clinical, boring, lifeless, uninspired, amateurish, some okay phrasing here and there, a bit more life in the faster movements, the finale ends very well. They should have just released the finale alone.

C - Very powerful and exciting, THIS is Beethoven, beautiful phrasing, obvious understanding of the harmonic structure, wonderful tempo shifts, slow basic tempo that mostly works except for just a few sluggish moments. I'm guessing Klemperer here - similar to Furtwangler but less elastic - a great performance by an obviously elite Beethoven conductor."


----------



## Merl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^Knowing what I've read about the premieres of his symphonies, I don't think the orchestras in Beethoven's time had anywhere close to the capabilities of playing at, say, Gardiner's virtuosic tempi. This doesn't mean that Beethoven didn't prefer faster tempi, but he may not have heard it that way. For me "fast" and "slow" take a backseat to how the music is interpreted. I enjoy both Toscanini and Barbirolli's Eroicas. They both have equally valid notions of performance that touch me deep inside. But of course, we're drifting off the topic of Mahler. I'm sorry for ever bringing up the hypothetical Karajan Mahler 7, I had no idea how much digression would ensue!


Totally agree, ACB, but we weren't talking about tempo, we were discussing tempo rubato. Tempo rubato can be a valid and very effective device when used at the right time and sparingly (Scherchen and Furtwangler - who were very different in the way they conceived Beethoven - and others used it to great effect in their best performances). I was just pointing out that it wasn't common practice in orchestras of Beethoven's time. The argument over speed will go on forever and really it doesn't matter to me as long as someone can convince me with their interpretations. There's no one 'way' to play Beethoven. Mahler is even less problematic for me. As far as the orchestras of the time are concerned, Saving said,

_"The general technical level of playing during the 19th century changed dramatically because of the institutionalisation of music education, but there is no reason to believe that the prominent performers of the previous era were less than excellent, although there may have been fewer of them. Might it have been that the elusive concept of extreme talent was more important when methodical education and ample practice and rehearsal time couldn't compensate, to a certain extent, for the lack of it?"_

For example, at the premiere of Beethoven's 7th symphony the orchestra was led by Beethoven's friend Ignaz Schuppanzigh and included some of the" finest musicians of the day: violinist Louis Spohr, composers Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Giacomo Meyerbeer and Antonio Salieri, bassoonist Anton Romberg, and the Italian double bass virtuoso Domenico Dragonetti, whom Beethoven described as playing "with great fire and expressive power". The Italian guitar virtuoso Mauro Giuliani played cello at the premiere. "

These were hardly enthusiastic amateurs but musicians at the very top of their game and possibly more skilled than many of today's orchestral musicians. The idea that these virtuosos couldn't keep up with Beethoven or were poor by today's standards is frankly preposterous. Musicians travelled from all over Europe to play Beethoven's music and were hand-picked to play in Beethoven's orchestra (Young, Swift, etc) . The biggest drawback was the lack of rehearsal which frustrated Beethoven a great deal (according to Czerny who witnessed a massive LvB blowout after the premiere of Fidelio). Beethoven was less concerned with tempi in his performances and more concerned with dynamics (the reason for his Fidelio hissy-fit). These orchestras played with minimum vibrato (it was widely frowned upon especially by highly renowned and virtuoso players of the time) and at an even tempo, with a strong pulse and bass-line. Authors and specialists on 18th and 19th century orchestras suggest that tempos were strictly observed to and that orchestral players' "adherence to a strict tempo would have sounded rather contrasting to modern practice" (Saving). No one is saying that is the only way to perform, it's just how it was at the time. Ferdinand Ries (Beethoven's friend, pupil and secretary) noted that Beethoven generally kept very strictly accurate time, only very rarely quickening the tempo and valued highly the playing of those who played with almost metronomic precision (he greatly admired Hummel's playing in this regard, even though they allegedly argued like cat and dog). As I said, it's not how we see things today, it's just what it would have been like in Beethoven's time. Personally, I don't give a monkeys as long as it's good.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Merl said:


> Totally agree, ACB, but we weren't talking about tempo, we were discussing tempo rubato. Tempo rubato can be a valid and very effective device when used at the right time and sparingly (Scherchen and Furtwangler - who were very different in the way they conceived Beethoven - and others used it to great effect in their best performances). I was just pointing out that it wasn't common practice in orchestras of Beethoven's time. The argument over speed will go on forever and really it doesn't matter to me as long as someone can convince me with their interpretations. There's no one 'way' to play Beethoven. Mahler is even less problematic for me. As far as the orchestras of the time are concerned, Saving said,
> 
> _"The general technical level of playing during the 19th century changed dramatically because of the institutionalisation of music education, but there is no reason to believe that the prominent performers of the previous era were less than excellent, although there may have been fewer of them. Might it have been that the elusive concept of extreme talent was more important when methodical education and ample practice and rehearsal time couldn't compensate, to a certain extent, for the lack of it?"_
> 
> For example, at the premiere of Beethoven's 7th symphony the orchestra was led by Beethoven's friend Ignaz Schuppanzigh and included some of the" finest musicians of the day: violinist Louis Spohr, composers Johann Nepomuk Hummel, Giacomo Meyerbeer and Antonio Salieri, bassoonist Anton Romberg, and the Italian double bass virtuoso Domenico Dragonetti, whom Beethoven described as playing "with great fire and expressive power". The Italian guitar virtuoso Mauro Giuliani played cello at the premiere. "
> 
> These were hardly enthusiastic amateurs but musicians at the very top of their game and possibly more skilled than many of today's orchestral musicians. The idea that these virtuosos couldn't keep up with Beethoven or were poor by today's standards is frankly preposterous. Musicians travelled from all over Europe to play Beethoven's music and were hand-picked to play in Beethoven's orchestra (Young, Swift, etc) . The biggest drawback was the lack of rehearsal which frustrated Beethoven a great deal (according to Czerny who witnessed a massive LvB blowout after the premiere of Fidelio). Beethoven was less concerned with tempi in his performances and more concerned with dynamics (the reason for his Fidelio hissy-fit). These orchestras played with minimum vibrato (it was widely frowned upon especially by highly renowned and virtuoso players of the time) and at an even tempo, with a strong pulse and bass-line. Authors and specialists on 18th and 19th century orchestras suggest that tempos were strictly observed to and that orchestral players' "adherence to a strict tempo would have sounded rather contrasting to modern practice" (Saving). No one is saying that is the only way to perform, it's just how it was at the time. Ferdinand Ries (Beethoven's friend, pupil and secretary) noted that Beethoven generally kept very strictly accurate time, only very rarely quickening the tempo and valued highly the playing of those who played with almost metronomic precision (he greatly admired Hummel's playing in this regard, even though they allegedly argued like cat and dog). As I said, it's not how we see things today, it's just what it would have been like in Beethoven's time. Personally, I don't give a monkeys as long as it's good.


Yup. Historical scholarship can be fascinating but ultimately it all comes down to how to communicate the music most effectively. I certainly don't "require" rubato in order to enjoy Beethoven - I just like fluidity and smooth integration. For example, I'm not all that big on Gardiner because he simply seems to push breathlessly forward - speed for speed's sake. I have no problem with metronomic precision but it's just not the kind of style I like. But other fast performances like Skrowaczewski and Toscanini (who I've come to appreciate more) have more of a supple rhythm in which the consistent tempi seem more natural. There is an organic push/pull that I think Furtwangler does very effectively and makes it seem like the music is being made up on the spot, but I also like Klemperer, who manages to keep a rock-solid beat and still make it sound convincing with cosmic attention to detail. The moral of the story (for me) - Beethoven would not care. He was a firebrand revolutionary who would roar with hearty approval at any performance of his music today as long as it is done with passion, vigor, and individuality.


----------



## Merl

Yet we're digressing again........back to Karajan's Mahler. There was a 'strong rumour' that Karajan planned to record Mahler's 8th after the 9th. I wonder if there was any basis in this rumour?


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> For example, I'm not all that big on Gardiner because he simply seems to push breathlessly forward - speed for speed's sake.


And that's what I mean when I say Beethoven's music is stuffed into someone else's agenda. The art of interpretation is to figure out what was in the composer's head and to effectively communicate it, not to use the music as a tool for proving your own greatness. With the greatest interpreters, every work sounds different as opposed to different compositions being stuffed into the same aesthetic time and time again.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Merl said:


> Yet we're digressing again........back to Karajan's Mahler. There was a 'strong rumour' that Karajan planned to record Mahler's 8th after the 9th. I wonder if there was any basis in this rumour?


I'll repeat again, since there is so much noise and digression, my impression of Karajan. His greatest gift was an innate understanding and appreciation of the structure of music. He understood harmonic structure. He understood dynamics, tempo, and phrasing. This is why I always say Karajan is a reliable interpreter in generally good sound.

But the reason he is rarely a first choice for me is that what I hear is the shell of a great performance. There is something missing inside. There is a great interview with Bruno Walter where he discusses how to conduct Tristan und Isolde, a conductor must himself be someone who has felt this longing passion, or that he must love the meadows and the brooks to conduct Beethoven's Pastoral. What I don't get with Herbie is a personal identification with the spirit and emotions of the music. What does the music mean to him personally? It comes across - to me - as an extremely gifted musician who is displaying his gifts but does not live and die with the emotions of the music as, say, a Carlos Kleiber does. Karajan seems more concerned with the mechanics of the music and then the promotion and sale of it, almost in a way absent of emotional attachment.

This applies to Mahler, of course, but in the case of the live 9th I find a rare case where Karajan lets go more and connects emotionally, so instead of sounding stale the music has more life in it.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> People focus too much on speed. The issue is more as Heck alluded to - rhythmic flexibility and freedom. To me, performances of Beethoven that are performed in a strict tempo sound ridiculous. It strikes me as Beethoven being stuffed into someone else's aesthetic. It is antithetical to the spirit and the harmonic storyline of the music. Beethoven was both a performer and composer of expressive freedom, not pedantic discipline. It is inherent in the writing.
> 
> For me, a perfect example of a quintissential Beethoven performance, capturing exactly the spirit of Beethoven's writing, is this recording of the Kreutzer sonata by Huberman (a favorite soloist of Furtwangler's) and Friedman. They are telling the story of the work in as dramatic, personal, and freely expressive a way as possible. It is a rough reading, stretching the boundaries without regard for simple mechanical perfection. But it is precisely the freedom they employ that allows them to naturally follow the harmonic progression of the music. THAT is Beethoven. Not pedantic rubbish meant to squeeze Beethoven into someone else's agenda.


But that is just your opinion. Nothing in the score to suggest that. The problem is you are just stating your own opinion as an established fact without any evidence whatsoever. It is your opinion. You are just squeezing Beethoven into your agenda. And how on earth are we discussing Beethoven's violin sonata on a thread about Karajan's Mahler?


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I'll repeat again, since there is so much noise and digression, my impression of Karajan. His greatest gift was an innate understanding and appreciation of the structure of music. He understood harmonic structure. He understood dynamics, tempo, and phrasing. This is why I always say Karajan is a reliable interpreter in generally good sound.
> 
> But the reason he is rarely a first choice for me is that what I hear is the shell of a great performance. There is something missing inside. There is a great interview with Bruno Walter where he discusses how to conduct Tristan und Isolde, a conductor must himself be someone who has felt this longing passion, or that he must love the meadows and the brooks to conduct Beethoven's Pastoral. What I don't get with Herbie is a personal identification with the spirit and emotions of the music. What does the music mean to him personally? It comes across - to me - as an extremely gifted musician who is displaying his gifts but does not live and die with the emotions of the music as, say, a Carlos Kleiber does. Karajan seems more concerned with the mechanics of the music and then the promotion and sale of it, almost in a way absent of emotional attachment.
> 
> This applies to Mahler, of course, but in the case of the live 9th I find a rare case where Karajan lets go more and connects emotionally, so instead of sounding stale the music has more life in it.


You are of course seeing this the wrong way. What the problem is is that you don't identify with Karajan's vision of the music. I have no problem with that but it seems to me you are all the time shifting the goalposts. You are then you Gotta listen to the Tristan und Isolde from Bayreuth 52 to feel the passion! To say he didn't identify with the spirit in the passion of the music is to find something which you are missing


----------



## Heck148

Brahmsianhorn said:


> ......The art of interpretation is to figure out what was in the composer's head and to effectively communicate it, not to use the music as a tool for proving your own greatness. With the greatest interpreters, every work sounds different as opposed to different compositions being stuffed into the same aesthetic time and time again.


Yes, good point, and certainly applicable here....


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> You are of course seeing this the wrong way. What the problem is is that you don't identify with Karajan's vision of the music. I have no problem with that but it seems to me you are all the time shifting the goalposts. You are then you Gotta listen to the Tristan und Isolde from Bayreuth 52 to feel the passion! To say he didn't identify with the spirit in the passion of the music is to find something which you are missing


It's not like I am alone in my reaction to Karajan. Good, reliable, impressive, but missing something emotionally...I have plenty of company in that opinion.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> *It's not like I am alone in my reaction to Karajan*. Good, reliable, impressive, but missing something emotionally...I have plenty of company in that opinion.


Yes apart from the millions who bought his recordings! :lol:

Your problem is that you don't appear to see it is your reaction. Not the performances.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> It's not like I am alone in my reaction to Karajan. Good, reliable, impressive, but missing something emotionally...I have plenty of company in that opinion.


And if you said Nicki Minaj was the greatest living musician, you'd have even more.


----------



## Merl

Knorf said:


> And if you said Nicki Minaj was the greatest living musician, you'd have even more.


Oi, leave Nicki outta this! Never cared for her Mahler, though. :lol:


----------



## Knorf

Her Mahler 7 would unquestionably be greater than Furtwängler, though. I mean, that much is obvious.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I honesty don’t understand why Karajan is so controversial next to his contemporaries like Reiner and Szell who also made a name for themselves cultivating an orchestra to a very distinct sound and selling millions of records off it. I don’t see him as any different.


----------



## Knorf

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I honesty don't understand why Karajan is so controversial next to his contemporaries like Reiner and Szell who also made a name for themselves cultivating an orchestra to a very distinct sound and selling millions of records off it. I don't see him as any different.


Exactly! To me it's quite baffling and bemusing. I've never previously encountered a classical music forum where recognizing that Karajan did some things really, really well would be so controversial and provoke so much argument. I mean, it's generally understood in the music world that Karajan was one of the greats, period.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Yes apart from the millions who bought his recordings! :lol:
> 
> Your problem is that you don't appear to see it is your reaction. Not the performances.


I've been listening to Karajan ad nauseum for decades. I enjoy his recordings enough to keep them around for occasional reference.

It's not that I don't understand or hear what people hear in Karajan. I hear it. It is plainly obvious in appeal, actually.

It is what I don't hear in Karajan that makes me appreciate other conductors more. Still, he occupies an important position in recording history. He was the last conductor who really understood how the music should go, and he left us gobs and gobs of great-sounding recordings. That's immensely important. Furtwangler and Toscanini didn't do that. They were too dead to do that.


----------



## Knorf

I mean, let's be very, very honest. Being obsessed with all of this Karajan/Klemperer/Furtwängler stuff and arguing about it passionately puts us all into a very, very small, rarefied group of music lovers.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> I mean, let's be very, very honest. Being obsessed with all of this Karajan/Klemperer/Furtwängler stuff and arguing about it passionately puts us all into a very, very small, rarefied group of music lovers.


Somewhat, but not as rarified as Stanisław Skrowaczewski fans


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I honesty don't understand why Karajan is so controversial next to his contemporaries like Reiner and Szell who also made a name for themselves cultivating an orchestra to a very distinct sound and selling millions of records off it. I don't see him as any different.


Who said Karajan was controversial? He was what he was, and Reiner and Szell were what they were.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Who said Karajan was controversial? He was what he was, and Reiner and Szell were what they were.


I was just wondering why he inspires so much debate here compared to others.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Somewhat, but not as rarified as Stanisław Skrowaczewski fans


More's the pity! Stan was awesome! You can call me a Skrowaczewski fan all you want!


----------



## Merl

Karajan had wanted to record a Mahler symphony for some years before he actually got round to it. Karajan was a student of Paumgartner, whose mother was a close friend of Mahler, and Mahler was a frequent topic of conversation at the Mozarteum with Paumgartner, who likened Karajan to Mahler in how we wanted music to sound. According to Osborne, when deciding what Mahler symphony to record Streseman, Intendant of the BPO, suggested he should try the 2nd or 9th (two works Karajan admired). Apparently Karajan nodded in agreement and then chose the 5th instead, very likely due to Karajan's love of the movie 'Death in Venice' and, I suspect, because of the use and popularity of the adagietto in the score. Also he was likely reluctant to record either the 2nd or 9th, two works that his hero, Bruno Walter, had recorded with great success. There was conjecture too that he was considering recording Mahler's 1st symphony in 1979 as he loved Tennstedt's 1978 recording and actually met Tennstedt and discussed it with him with a view to trying it himself. Why he never went ahead with it who knows but Peter Alward, former President of EMI's classical division, claimed that Karajan couldn't "identify with the culture of the symphony" (whatever he meant by that) but perhaps he thought maybe it might not shift enough units. Yeah, I know lots of conjecture there but all interesting stuff.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I was just wondering why he inspires so much debate here compared to others.


I suppose it's because if one describes Karajan as merely "very good" as opposed to "one of the greatest conductors who ever lived" that inspires heated backlash from some.

IMO if Karajan had lived a generation earlier and died around 1960 or so, he would hardly be remembered today at all as more than a merely serviceable conductor. He certainly would not be remembered with the pre-stereo giants like Furtwangler, Toscanini, etc. Karajan just happened to arrive at the perfect time to produce recordings that represent an unmatched legacy in terms of sound quality and reliable interpretation across a wide range of repertoire. And we are all the better for it. He learned from the masters and passed that knowledge on to younger generations.


----------



## Knorf

IMO if Furtwängler had died ca. 1940 he wouldn't have been remembered at all.

So forking what? 

But actually, I think if Karajan had died ca. 1960 his 1959 Heldenleben and Philharmonia Beethoven cycle, among other work of his, would have been elevated to Legendary Status.

If anything hurt Karajan's career, it was his very uneven 80s digital recordings, few of which being preferred over anything else from his career.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> IMO if Furtwängler had died ca. 1940 he wouldn't have been remembered at all.
> 
> So forking what?
> 
> But actually, I think if Karajan had died ca. 1960 his 1959 Heldenleben and Philharmonia Beethoven cycle, among other work of his, would have been elevated to Legendary Status.
> 
> If anything hurt Karajan's career, it was his very uneven 80s digital recordings, few of which being preferred over anything else from his career.


I think you miss my point. I'm not saying if Karajan's career had been cut short by death. I'm saying if his lifespan had been contemporary with Furtwangler/Toscanini so that his legacy wasn't built with the benefit of stereo sound, he would not be remembered as a great conductor, just one of several very good conductors.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think you miss my point. I'm not saying if Karajan's career had been cut short by death. I'm saying if his lifespan had been contemporary with Furtwangler/Toscanini so that his legacy wasn't built with the benefit of stereo sound, he would not be remembered as a great conductor, just one of several very good conductors.


And I'm saying that isn't true, given his monophonic Philharmonia Beethoven cycle. Or stuff like his 1947 Vienna Beethoven 9.

You also seem to be suggesting there wasn't comparable competition into the stereo era, which is nonsense on the level of Swerski's Superfans.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I've been listening to Karajan ad nauseum for decades. I enjoy his recordings enough to keep them around for occasional reference.
> 
> It's not that I don't understand or hear what people hear in Karajan. I hear it. It is plainly obvious in appeal, actually.
> 
> It is what I don't hear in Karajan that makes me appreciate other conductors more. Still, he occupies an important position in recording history. He was the last conductor who really understood how the music should go, and he left us gobs and gobs of great-sounding recordings. That's immensely important. Furtwangler and Toscanini didn't do that. They were too dead to do that.


You seem to have obsessed with these things and really need to get over it. If you prefer the conductor is fine but you just go on about giving your opinion about it. For goodness sake he wasn't the last conductor a really understood how music should go either. They have been conductors since him who have given us great performances.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I think you miss my point. I'm not saying if Karajan's career had been cut short by death. I'm saying if his lifespan had been contemporary with Furtwangler/Toscanini so that his legacy wasn't built with the benefit of stereo sound, he would not be remembered as a great conductor, just one of several very good conductors.


Yes well if Toscanini had hav3 died in his forties he wouldn't quite have the legacy he has. You can say that about anyone


----------



## Itullian

My first Mahler recordings were Karajan's.
I liked them then and still like them now.
I wish he had done more.


----------



## Knorf

Itullian said:


> My first Mahler recordings were Karajan's.
> I liked them then and still like them now.
> I wish he had done more.


You know what, I think I do, too, now. It seemed like his work on Mahler represented something of an evolution in his creativity, and it would have been interesting at least to see where it led.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> And I'm saying that isn't true, given his monophonic Philharmonia Beethoven cycle. Or stuff like his 1947 Vienna Beethoven 9.


I disagree. Without the benefit of his stereo legacy these recordings would be remembered by connoisseurs but not on the level of Klemperer, Walter, or even Eduard van Beinum who did some excellent mono Beethoven in the 50s.

He recorded an excellent Brahms Requiem shortly after the war that still today is one of the 2 or 3 best that I know. Actually, as a choral and opera conductor, I think Karajan ranks higher than as a purely orchestral conductor.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Actually, as a choral and opera conductor, I think Karajan ranks higher than as a purely orchestral conductor.


I agree. That sumptuous orchestral sound works great in an accompanying role. His recordings of Puccini operas (La Boheme and Madama Butterfly) with Pavarotti and Freni helped me get into opera. Also his Wagner Parsifal, where he really gets into the sensuousness of Wagner's voluptuous soundworld.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I disagree. Without the benefit of his stereo legacy these recordings would be remembered by connoisseurs but not on the level of Klemperer, Walter, or even Eduard van Beinum who did some excellent mono Beethoven in the 50s.
> 
> He recorded an excellent Brahms Requiem shortly after the war that still today is one of the 2 or 3 best that I know. Actually, as a choral and opera conductor, I think Karajan ranks higher than as a purely orchestral conductor.


For goodness sake if Klemperer hadn't gave had his stereo legacy he wouldn't be remembered. Neither would Walter. You just clutching at straws to try and win your non-argument


----------



## Knorf

Without a backhanded swipe at his symphony conducting, I agree that Karajan showed some of his best talents and skill when working with singers. I remember a documentary about him from the 1980s, that had footage of him rehearsing an opera. Which opera, I've forgotten. But it was incredible, absolutely amazing stuff, his ability to get so much detail and nuance so efficiently and musically.

I think Karajan's _Cavelleria rusticana_ and _Pagliacci_ are supreme achievements in Italian opera.

A hypothetical Mahler 8 from Karajan might really have been something!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I agree. That sumptuous orchestral sound works great in an accompanying role. His recordings of Puccini operas (La Boheme and Madama Butterfly) with Pavarotti and Freni helped me get into opera. Also his Wagner Parsifal, where he really gets into the sensuousness of Wagner's voluptuous soundworld.


The one recording where I prefer Karajan to Furtwangler on direct comparison is The Magic Flute from 1950, which was an almost identical cast to Furtwangler live in Salzburg just months later with the same VPO. Obviously having a Legge-produced studio recording is an advantage, but Karajan also brought out the beauty in Mozart's score that make this a top recommendation for me in this opera, above every recording made since (though I still also like the old '37 Beecham). No doubt Furtwangler's is more emotive for example in the poignant aria "Ach, ich fuhls," but this is not a score where too much interpretive work is necessary. (Don Giovanni is a different matter, and I find Furtwangler without peer in this opera)


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake if Klemperer hadn't gave had his stereo legacy he wouldn't be remembered. Neither would Walter. You just clutching at straws to try and win your non-argument


Absolutely false. In Walter's case his best recordings were made well before stereo. Some might say the same about Klemp except his output was too small to draw conclusions. Certainly his 1951 Mahler 2nd is one of the greatest ever made, and his live Beethoven on Testament is among the greatest as well.

But the main point is that Klemperer possessed interpretive genius which went beyond the confines of recording quality. I cannot with a straight face say the same of Karajan.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Without a backhanded swipe at his symphony conducting, I agree that Karajan showed some of his best talents and skill when working with singers. I remember a documentary about him from the 1980s, that had footage of him rehearsing an opera. Which opera, I've forgotten. But it was incredible, absolutely amazing stuff, his ability to get so much detail and nuance so efficiently and musically.
> 
> I think Karajan's _Cavelleria rusticana_ and _Pagliacci_ are supreme achievements in Italian opera.
> 
> A hypothetical Mahler 8 from Karajan might really have been something!


Also his Bach Mass in B minor, the 1950 with Ferrier, sadly truncated at the beginning, is one of the greatest I know. And his Haydn Creation is an unforgettable classic. No, he was every good with singers and had a gift for picking the rights one as well.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> [Karajan] recorded an excellent Brahms Requiem shortly after the war that still today is one of the 2 or 3 best that I know.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...But the main point is that Klemperer possessed interpretive genius which went beyond the confines of recording quality. I cannot with a straight face say the same of Karajan.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> Also his Bach Mass in B minor, the 1950 with Ferrier, sadly truncated at the beginning, is one of the greatest I know. And his Haydn Creation is an unforgettable classic.


My Cognitive Dissonance Meter just pegged.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolutely false. In Walter's case his best recordings were made well before stereo. Some might say the same about Klemp except his output was too small to draw conclusions. Certainly his 1951 Mahler 2nd is one of the greatest ever made, and his live Beethoven on Testament is among the greatest as well.
> 
> But the main point is that Klemperer possessed interpretive genius which went beyond the confines of recording quality. I cannot with a straight face say the same of Karajan.


Oh come off it. No-one would have heard his live Beethoven on Testament if Legge hadn't picked him to succeed Karajan at th3 Philharmonia. His 1951 Mahler 2nd? It would be unknown without his famous stereo version. Another highly subjective opinion expressed as a fact btw! My Vognitive Dissonance Meter just pegged too! :lol:


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> My Cognitive Dissonance Meter just pegged.


Haha, I knew I'd do it to you. It's all relative. Did he make some great recordings? Yes, even in his later days with the Mahler 9th and Bruckner 8th. Is he therefore on the same level as Klemperer or Walter, to say nothing of Furtwangler or Toscanini? IMO, no. Are his Beethoven symphonies the greatest or among the greatest interpretations we have on record? IMO, no.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> His 1951 Mahler 2nd? It would be *the greatest version on record* without his famous stereo version.


fify

.


----------



## Knorf

Altering someone else's words in a quote box is super uncool.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Altering someone else's words in a quote box is super uncool.


You've never heard of fify?


----------



## Itullian

I think there was genius in Karajan.
When I listen to his Ring I am amazed at his interpretation.
Totally unique.
His Bruckner is momentous.
I may not agree with his "beauty uber alles" philosophy.
I think he was best in the romantic period works.
But I must say I thoroughly enjoy his 60's Brandenbourg Concertos,
and even his big band Haydn. Wrong as it may be.

His Calles recordings are legendary.
He was a different conductor back then.
I just listened to his 70's Beethoven cycle and liked it very much.


----------



## flamencosketches

Itullian said:


> I just listened to his 70's Beethoven cycle and liked it very much.


I ordered it. Excited to spend time with the music. Lately I've been hooked on Bernstein/New York for the Beethoven symphonies, recorded in the '60s. I expect it and the Karajan to be polar opposites, but I have high hopes in any case.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Itullian said:


> I think there was genius in Karajan.
> When I listen to his Ring I am amazed at his interpretation.
> Totally unique.
> His Bruckner is momentous.
> I may not agree with his "beauty uber alles" philosophy.
> I think he was best in the romantic period works.
> But I must say I thoroughly enjoy his 60's Brandenbourg Concertos,
> and even his big band Haydn. Wrong as it may be.
> 
> His Calles recordings are legendary.
> He was a different conductor back then.
> I just listened to his 70's Beethoven cycle and liked it very much.


Oh, the 1955 Lucia di Lammermoor with Callas is one of the greatest opera recordings in history.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Oh, and this may or may not be pertinent to this thread, but I just got an Instagram like from Furtwangler's granddaughter. I'm not making that up. My year is made.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Her Mahler 7 would unquestionably be greater than Furtwängler, though. I mean, that much is obvious.


LOL!!............


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> You've never heard of fify?


Of course I have. It is puerile and disrespectful.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I honesty don't understand why Karajan is so controversial next to his contemporaries like Reiner and Szell who also made a name for themselves cultivating an orchestra to a very distinct sound and selling millions of records off it. I don't see him as any different.


Szell, perhaps, to some degree, but conductors like Reiner, Monteux, Stokowski were remarkable for their ability to bring forth different orchestra sounds to 
adapt to different styles and genres of music...I detect little inclination on the part of these conductors to force a general tonal conformity into all of the music they conducted. Stravinsky made the comment that Chicago, under Reiner, was the most flexible orchestra in the world....ie...it could adapt successfully to so many different styles and modes of music.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Stravinsky made the comment that Chicago, under Reiner, was the most flexible orchestra in the world....ie...it could adapt successfully to so many different styles and modes of music.


I think he's wrong about that, but, eh, it's not the first time I thought good Igor was wrong about something.


----------



## Heck148

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I was just wondering why he inspires so much debate here compared to others.


Really, agreed...


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> Really, agreed...


For me, what I dislike is when someone says something like, "I totally get Karajan's appeal. He appeals to people who like musical conformity, the absence of risk taking, and a corporate mentality."

No, that is NOT why some people, like me, find at least some of what Karajan did appealing, and you just insulted us rather badly.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> I think he's wrong about that, but, eh, it's not the first time I thought good Igor was wrong about something.


The LondonSO ranks up pretty high in that category, too..


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> For me, what I dislike is when someone says something like, "I totally get Karajan's appeal. He appeals to people who like musical conformity, the absence of risk taking, and a corporate mentality."
> 
> No, that is NOT why some people, like me, find at least some of what Karajan did appealing, and you just insulted us rather badly.


?? I did?? I've no problem with what or whom people like...it's a free world (I think).


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> The LondonSO ranks up pretty high in that category, too..


Now that I agree with!

This is a terrible digression, but one time when I was amazed with the transformation of the sound of an orchestra was a time when Richard Hickox guest conducted the Seattle Symphony in William Walton's Symphony No. 1. This was in the Gerard Schwarz SSO era, which was hardly known for its flexibility at the time.

Hickox almost made me swear I was hearing the LSO, and not Seattle. It blew me away. What a great concert! My friends in the SSO told me they really liked Hickox, too. Pity he never came back.


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> ?? I did?? I've no problem with what or whom people like...it's a free world (I think).


I'm so sorry; I now realize the post I wrote made it sound like I was referring to you, my fellow bassoonist friend. I wasn't.


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> I'm so sorry; I now realize the post I wrote made it sound like I was referring to you, my fellow bassoonist friend. I wasn't.


No problem...


----------



## Knorf

Heck148 said:


> No problem...


*Whew*

I actually feel that your and my disagreements have been quite healthy. For me, because of you, I've decided to revisit some Reiner recordings I hadn't thought about in years.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Heck148 said:


> Really, agreed...


I honestly feel as if I cannot freely express an opinion anymore. If I criticize HvK I'm jumped all over as a hater, but if I praise him I am then faulted for being a hypocrite. I've been pretty darned consistent in what I like of his and what I don't like, and if someone takes offense on mere opinions over musical interpretation, all I can say is there are far more serious problems in the world to raise such a fuss about.


----------



## Knorf

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I honestly feel as if I cannot freely express an opinion anymore. If I criticize HvK I'm jumped all over as a hater, but if I praise him I am then faulted for being a hypocrite. I've been pretty darned consistent in what I like of his and what I don't like, and if someone takes offense on mere opinions over musical interpretation, all I can say is there are far more serious problems in the world to raise such a fuss about.


Your description about how this went, and how it actually went, ain't exactly similar.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Knorf said:


> Your description about how this went, and how it actually went, ain't exactly similar.


There is an old adage in psychology that no one can "make" you feel anything. If you feel that you are personally being attacked because you disagree with my criticisms of Karajan, despite the fact that all I did was talk about Karajan, then that is not my fault. I have talked ad nauseum about Karajan's good and bad qualities. If you disagree with those opinions, then say so. But taking personal offense to my opinions is silly.

That said, if you ever blast Furtwangler, just know that I will mention it to his granddaughter and she WILL take personal offense.


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Absolutely false. In Walter's case his best recordings were made well before stereo. Some might say the same about Klemp except his output was too small to draw conclusions. Certainly his 1951 Mahler 2nd is one of the greatest ever made, and his live Beethoven on Testament is among the greatest as well.
> 
> But the main point is that Klemperer possessed interpretive genius which went beyond the confines of recording quality. I cannot with a straight face say the same of Karajan.


Sorry but you are wrong here. Klemperer was only recognised as a major conductor in London after Legge found him. His career after the war had stalled. He's Beethoven and testament would never of been heard had it not been for the stereo recordings because Testament would never have made them. Sorry but you're completely up the creek here historically. I don't know whether you realise but to say that Klemperer possessed an interpretive genius which went beyond the confines of recording quality is a meaningless statement. Karajan did as well. Just listen to his some of his early recordings. Musicians have a greater perception than you say he brought something to British music which hadn't been heard before


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Oh, and this may or may not be pertinent to this thread, but I just got an Instagram like from Furtwangler's granddaughter. I'm not making that up. My year is made.


Well as the gentleman had 13 at least illegitimate children I would imagine that his grandchildren are quite plentiful. I used to know one of Thomas Beecham's grandchildren


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I honestly feel as if I cannot freely express an opinion anymore. If I criticize HvK I'm jumped all over as a hater, but if I praise him I am then faulted for being a hypocrite. I've been pretty darned consistent in what I like of his and what I don't like, and if someone takes offense on mere opinions over musical interpretation, all I can say is there are far more serious problems in the world to raise such a fuss about.


It is not that you express your opinion but that you express it as if it is a fact. It is your opinion it is not a fact. Express it as an opinion and that is fine. The problem is you expressed an opinion as if it is a fact come down from the Mount on tablets. Just learn to express an opinion as an opinion. You go on about Heifetz it's as though it's a fact when much of the musical world thinks his Brahms concerto is one of the greatest ever recordings. Learn to distinguish opinion from facts and express it like that


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> There is an old adage in psychology that no one can "make" you feel anything. If you feel that you are personally being attacked because you disagree with my criticisms of Karajan, despite the fact that all I did was talk about Karajan, then that is not my fault. I have talked ad nauseum about Karajan's good and bad qualities. If you disagree with those opinions, then say so. But taking personal offense to my opinions is silly.
> 
> That said, if you ever blast Furtwangler, just know that I will mention it to his granddaughter and she WILL take personal offense.


Well don't take personal offence at our opinions then. And Furtwangler's granddaughter shouldn't either otherwise She will be as paranoid as her grandfather was about other conductors. You manage to turn this thread into a discussion about Furtwangler - who never conducted Mahler. Give it a rest. He is not relevant here


----------



## Eclectic Al

Saying anything on this thread seems like prodding an ant's nest. Anyway, my conclusion from all this is that any time there is a Karajan recording of anything I must try and make sure I hear it, so I can make up my mind.
I have a fair few already, and return often to the Honegger 2&3, Sibelius generally, 2nd Viennese School, Metamorphosen and Zarathustra, Prokofiev 5, Shostakovich 10, plus a fair chunk of Bruckner, Beethoven and Brahms. Also that Grieg disc he did, I liked. And yes, I like his Mahler 5, 6 and 9.
I couldn't possibly say if they are the best, or even really know what that means. I don't listen to pieces with a view to placing them in a ranking; I think I just (quite possibly sub-consciously) make a mental note of if I would like to hear that recording again, and with Karajan the answer is often yes. It may be that I like "safe" performances, but I'm not consciously seeking that out: I think what I am seeking is performances that I will wish to return to repeatedly, and maybe that means I don't want them to be too extreme or wayward, and maybe that's a bit like safe. I know I don't like interpretations with features that I will come to regard on repeat listening as mannered, which might include for example excessive idiosyncratic flexing of tempo. Maybe there's a difference here between those who largely don't attend concerts and those who do. Concerts are inherently one-offs, so that may give a taste for the strong idiosyncratic performance which convinces once "in the moment", but I want accounts I can live with again and again.

I come to this site largely to hear recommendations of good performances and also pieces I am not familiar with or have forgotten. As I said at the start, I think now that that must mean always to check out the Karajan.


----------



## millionrainbows

Karajan fits my image of what a German conductor should be, and look like.

Furtwangler does not. The film footage I've seen of him makes him look like a Robert Crumb cartoon, with big rounded shoes and dumpy trousers, kind of an Elmer Fudd doofus.


----------



## starthrower

millionrainbows said:


> Karajan fits my image of what a German conductor should be, and look like.


I've always suspected that his Mahler readings might be the same. Immaculate on the surface but ultimately superficial.


----------



## Eclectic Al

starthrower said:


> I've always suspected that his Mahler readings might be the same. Immaculate on the surface but ultimately superficial.


And round we go again. In computer programming terms we've hit a Loop statement. So back we go several pages up the thread, to find the Do statement. We then start again from there.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

millionrainbows said:


> Karajan fits my image of what a German conductor should be, and look like.
> 
> Furtwangler does not. The film footage I've seen of him makes him look like a Robert Crumb cartoon, with big rounded shoes and dumpy trousers, kind of an Elmer Fudd doofus.


You literally just made my points in this thread better than I could ever have. Thanks!


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> I've always suspected that his Mahler readings might be the same. Immaculate on the surface but ultimately superficial.


The Karajan Mahler 9s, at least, are definitely _not_ superficial. They are very obviously detailed and deeply committed.


----------



## starthrower

Knorf said:


> The Karajan Mahler 9s, at least, are definitely _not_ superficial. They are very obviously detailed and deeply committed.


I've read many positives about the 1982 live recording.


----------



## Knorf

starthrower said:


> I've read many positives about the 1982 live recording.


It's one of my favorites, nothing to be ashamed of even in the company of Bernstein, Barbirolli, Walter, Klemperer.


----------



## starthrower

It's available in a budget box set. https://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Von-Karajan-Berliner-Philharmoniker/dp/B06W59KZVN


----------



## Heck148

millionrainbows said:


> The film footage I've seen of him makes him look like a Robert Crumb cartoon, with big rounded shoes and dumpy trousers, kind of an Elmer Fudd doofus.


LOL!! :lol::lol:
[oh, boy....]


----------



## Merl

Oops, wrong thread........


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> Oops, wrong thread........


Nooooo! Come back!


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> I've always suspected that his Mahler readings might be the same. Immaculate on the surface but ultimately superficial.


Then you haven't heard them?


----------



## Mykul

DavidA said:


> Well shows how much attention Karajan merits if we discuss recordings he never made of works he never conducted! :lol:


I find both the original post and this reply quite enlightening


----------



## ZeR0

Karajan has never been one of my favorite conductors (in Mahler or any composer really), as say Furtwängler and Bernstein are. I also think it's important to note that I don't dislike Karajan either. I have some of his recordings; it's just that for most works if I want to listen to them his performances generally won't be the first or second on my list. But I have to give him credit for his recordings of the 9th. There was a man who seemed to understand what Mahler was trying to communicate. They must be considered some of his better recordings he's ever done, and thus are well worth listening to.


----------



## starthrower

DavidA said:


> Then you haven't heard them?


No. I may pick up the 9th. I've got too much Mahler to buy another full cycle.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> No. I may pick up the 9th. I've got too much Mahler to buy another full cycle.


You must try his live 9th. There's a lot more to it than surface gloss, it showcases a deep understanding of the idiom. I wouldn't argue with it being called one of his best recordings.


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> No. I may pick up the 9th. I've got too much Mahler to buy another full cycle.


As Karajandidnotmake a full cycle you have nothing to fear!


----------



## NLAdriaan

Mahler 9 live '82 is on my overall desert island list. Karajan's other Mahler recordings are not.


----------



## 89Koechel

Well, there's one of us who's still comparing Herbert von K ... and his 1975 and 1982 recordings, of this remarkable work, for specific reasons. ONE, is that Herbert & his great Berlin Phil (of EITHER year) were at their, true best ... raveling (as-opposed to unraveling) the various elements/inspirations that Gustav could bring to "bear", in this truly-optimistic work. Maybe someone could explain how his inspirations could go from, fairly-optimistic ... to the "swan song" of Das Lied von der Erde. The melodic/harmonic inspirations are THERE, in both works ... maybe not in-parallel (musically) ... but I don't think either were VERY-far apart, musically. In other words, GM could achieve some GREAT definitions of musical developments, of his unique sort, and his orchestral compositions, maybe, DID follow the path of his predecessors ... even in the "nine" of Beethoven, or Schubert, or Bruckner. ... Well, the Herbert von K recordings are probably not the "last word" on the "subject", but I, for one, can give the ol' German a certain respect. Geez, one wonders, also ... if Herbert's predecessor (Mr. Furtwangler) ... could've had an interest in some of Mahler's Symphonies, with WF's great Berlin Philharmonic, of it's day and age. As we know, WF was more-involved with recordings of his own preferences, and thanks for THEM! ... Thanks, and these are opinions, of course.


----------

