# Who else is a fan of Karajan?



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

A few years ago it was fashionable to diss Karajan, or at least to try to diminish his musical standing. I perceive that that trend has to some extent ameliorated, but not entirely disappeared.

For me, in the workhorse, 19th century, late classical and romantic orchestral music Karajan, usually with the Berlin Philharmonic, sometimes with the VPO, always provides enjoyment. I sometimes will appreciate an individual performance of a piece, e.g. Carlos Kleiber's legendary Beethoven 5th and 7th, over Karajan; but I can always pick a Karajan/BPO recording of the core orchestral canon and thoroughly enjoy it. Indeed I will often prefer it over all others. For example, while I will occasionally mix in some Markevitch or Mravinsky recordings of the Tchaikovsky symphonies, I will always thoroughly enjoy and often prefer Karajan's recording of the same. 

So has Karajan been rehabilitated? Are you too a fan of Karajan?


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

Uh, oh..................


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

I agree 100%. Not usually my top choice, but often near the top. Reliable interpretations in good if not great sound quality.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Haziz, I grudge you nothing for starting this thread, but threads with this topic seem to unswervingly devolve into flame wars for reasons beyond my comprehension. I have no idea why he is so controversial compared to other conductors. But to answer your question - I am not a “fan” of Karajan, but I consider his style to work very well in many composers, and not so well in others. His Beethoven, Bruckner, and Strauss is certainly among the finest, if not the greatest put to record in the stereo era. Other recordings of his that I love include the Prokofiev 5, his Ravel disc with the Paris Orchestra, and his Second Viennese School recordings. For the most part even when I don’t care for a Karajan recording I think he is worth hearing, even with his stereo Sibelius symphonies that I utterly cannot stand.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I would consider myself a fan, but more in the "enthusiast" vein than the "fanatic" original meaning of the term. I find HvK/BPO/VPO recordings to be a great starting point for most things in the repertoire, and many of them are my favorites of a given piece. I bought a Karajan Box as my first deep dive into classical. 

But I'd like to think I'm still open-minded enough to recognize when one of his recordings just isn't working (e.g. Bach, 80s Planets). I try to find an alternative reading for comparison on my very favorite pieces (e.g. Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Sibelius, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Tchaikovsky cycles, Bach concertos), though many of the HvK/BPO renditions are still are my first choice (I am open to the idea that "imprinting" accounts for some of this). I have found no need to try an alternative on his Strauss or his Bruckner. Those readings are utterly convincing to me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

haziz said:


> A few years ago it was fashionable to diss Karajan, or at least to try to diminish his musical standing. I perceive that that trend has to some extent ameliorated, but not entirely disappeared.
> 
> For me, in the workhorse, 19th century, late classical and romantic orchestral music Karajan, usually with the Berlin Philharmonic, sometimes with the VPO, always provides enjoyment. I sometimes will appreciate an individual performance of a piece, e.g. Carlos Kleiber's legendary Beethoven 5th and 7th, over Karajan; but I can always pick a Karajan/BPO recording of the core orchestral canon and thoroughly enjoy it. Indeed I will often prefer it over all others. For example, while I will occasionally mix in some Markevitch or Mravinsky recordings of the Tchaikovsky symphonies, I will always thoroughly enjoy and often prefer Karajan's recording of the same.
> 
> So has Karajan been rehabilitated? Are you too a fan of Karajan?


Haziz, if you are so inclined, I welcome you to peruse and participate in The Grand Karajan Review Thread.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Haziz, if you are so inclined, I welcome you to peruse and participate in The Grand Karajan Review Thread.


I'll second that, one of the best threads on TC in recent memory. @OP Karajan has never needed any rehabilitation here, his recordings have been a mainstay for nearly as long as my enjoyment of classical music.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

D Smith said:


> I'll second that, one of the best threads on TC in recent memory. @OP Karajan has never needed any rehabilitation here, his recordings have been a mainstay for nearly as long as my enjoyment of classical music.


Yes I would third that. The people who tended to diss Karajan were the second raters who were envious of his success and the critics who are usually second raters anyway. Karajan of course was not only a brilliant conductor but he had a thirst for power and built a huge empire which was perhaps not the best thing. But as a musician and conductor most people would consider him a genius. Of course the sheer quantity of recordings meant that not everything was a blinding success but if you go through his recordings over the years you usually find that at least one recording of most repertoire comes out near the top which is a pretty formidable achievement.Of course the sheer quantity of recordings meant that not everything was a blinding success but if you go through his recordings over the years you usually find that at least one recording of most repertoire comes out near the top which is a pretty formidable achievement. he caused a sensation with the Philarmonia after the war. Playing like it has never been heard in Britain before. These recordings are worth seeking out and then of course came the classic recordings with the Berlin Philharmonic and the Vienna Philharmonic. Of course Karajan not the only way of doing things but he did bring an exceptional electricity at his best.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm more of an enthusiast of Karajan than a fan. There's a lot of repertoire he was great at: much of the central Austrian/German canon (Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, R. Strauss), and he did very well in certain early 20th c. repertoire as well, such as in Sibelius and a few other specific pieces, such as Mahler 9, the music of Schönberg, Berg, and Webern, Shostakovich 10, and Prokofiev 5. He was better than average (and sometimes better than expected) at repertoire like Debussy's _La Mer_, or Tchaikovsky. He could be a top-shelf opera conductor as well, with legendary recordings of works like _Pagliacci_ as well as Wagner.

So that's a huge legacy, and should be rightly acclaimed.

But every conductor has their weak spots, and he had his. For one example, I couldn't live with his Mozart; it's just too heavy too often. And not that many of his recordings are truly the first I turn to, as much as I like them. But he was at his best in something like Richard Strauss, so that remains a top choice for me, as well as Sibelius 4 and 6, or Bruckner 7.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Not a fan in the sense that I collect all of his many, many recordings. But I do have a lot, two biographies, several videos. His importance and vision for the development of recorded music is significant. He sensed early on that video presentations of concerts will be the future. He made the most of it and really helped popularize it. I couldn't care less that he was a Nazi. Of all the Ring cycles I have, I still prefer his over any of them. I am a Fanboy of Paul Paray, Bruno Walter and Pierre Monteux. I wish there was a living conductor that I felt strongly about, but there just isn't.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Karajan recordings I consider to be very good are *Bruckner*: _Symphony #8_ (with the VPO); *Mahler*: _Das Lied von der Erde_ (w/Rene Kollo/Christa Ludwig/BPO); *Shostakovich*: _Symphony #10_ (w/BPO); *Sibelius*: _VC_ (w/Christian Ferras/BPO); *Sibelius*: _Symphony #4_ (w/BPO); *Beethoven'*s _Triple Concerto_, both the one he did with the USSR All-Stars (Oistrakh/Rostropovich/Richter), as well as, the one he did with the younger generation (Mutter/Ma/Zeltser); *Holst*'s _Planets_ (w/BPO); _Richard Strauss_' _Alpine Symphony_ (w/BPO, 1st recording ever made for CD); *Wagner*'s _Siegfried Idyll_ (w/VPO), and, interestingly, *Ravel*'s _Bolero_ (w/BPO), and *Vivaldi*'s _Four Seasons_ (w/in-house violinnst, Michel Schwalbe/BPO).

Karajan never slowed down and even seemed to get better with age, always advancing and perfecting his musical vision, and most of K's finest recordings seem to come from his final decade. In contrast, his contemporary and rival, Leonard Bernstein, seemed to produce the bulk of his most thrilling recordings earlier in his career (the Columbia recordings) with the later recordings (The DG recordings) being hit or miss.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

I'm just now listening through Karajan's Ring cycle, _Das Rheingold _ and _Die Walküre_ so far, and I love it. So good! I'll be returning to it often.

There are plenty of living conductors fully worthy of comparison to the past. To say otherwise is really just prejudicial.

Examples: Simone Young's Bruckner is competitive with anyone, and so is Blomstedt's Leipzig cycle. I find every bit as much enjoyment in Immerseel's Beethoven as any past cycles, and would say the same for Gardiner's Mendelssohn with the LSO and Chailly's Brahms with Leipzig. Okko Kamu's Sibelius with Lahti, Iván Fischer's Mahler in Budapest: all fully competitive with past favorites. I could go on...


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Honegger 3. Enough said.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I second the emotion on Immerseel, as well as Gardiner's, Beethoven. I'm not as big a fan of Gardiner's Mendelssohn. Too fast for my taste. Immerseel's Schubert is really good, too. Chailly usually turns in creditable recordings of the greats, as well. One might tag Rattle with the "pedestrian" label, but whenever I've listened to his recordings I've never felt like my time had been wasted. Colin Davis (I'm aware he died recently) is one whom I've never disliked a recording of, and I think his Sibelius and Nielsen are top shelf. I was very much impressed by Michael Sanderling's Shostakovich cycle with the Dresdner Philharmonie. I will be looking into some more of his recordings. Janowski's Wagner is first rate, as well. Trevor Pinnock simply can't be beat in the Baroque repertoire.

LSO's online store is a great resource for some of these more modern recordings (e.g. past 20 years) in great digital sound. I highly recommend them.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I generally prefer other conductors: Abbado, Klemperar, and Herreweghe. But Karajan is nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Funny that the ones who adore Karajan and defend him until the end of times with armed totalitarian forces, are now one by one downplaying their admiration. But of course I also read that anyone with a different opinion is just envious of Karajan's success. So: case closed:lol:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> Funny that the ones who adore Karajan and defend him until the end of times with armed totalitarian forces, are now one by one downplaying their admiration. But of course I also read that anyone with a different opinion is just envious of Karajan's success. So: case closed:lol:


I for one am not "downplaying my admiration." I am describing it. It just doesn't conform with what you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you must feel. It is possible to admire Karajan (which I do) without thinking he is infallible (which I don't).

Perhaps the only person here with a blind, unreasoning devotion to a particular position is you.

I admire your avatar, as well. But if I were to blindly restrict myself to just his recordings, my classical music library would peter out after about 6 hours. One of Karajan's great strengths was his longevity and his prolific recording schedule. For a good 75% of what most people would care to listen to, there is a Karajan version. Sometimes, quite frequently, in fact, it's the best. Other times, it's not but it is competently played and interpreted. Only rarely is it woefully misbegotten.

So Karajan for me is a good starting point. I can trust that I'll get a great sounding recording that is well played. Sometimes I want further opinions on the subject. Other times I don't feel the need.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Knorf said:


> There are plenty of living conductors fully worthy of comparison to the past. To say otherwise is really just prejudicial.


I agree...there are many fine conductors who put on great shows, know their stuff and can compete with the old boys. But what they lack is star power. Some of the conductors from the Golden Age had more than musical skills, they had a charisma and magnetism that no one today does. A lot of it is because of the times we live in. But when's the last time any conductor appeared on the cover of Time? Solti almost 50 years ago? When was the last time your local newspaper or TV station covered a story about the resident maestro? My parents had no interest in classical but even they knew and recognized pictures of the likes of Bernstein, Stokowski and Toscanini. As much as I admire the work of many of today's conductors I can't name one who is likely to be the subject of a biography in 50 years. That is, assuming people still care.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

If you travel around LA or Chicago you wouldn't miss noticing that pictures of Dudamel and Muti are everywhere. Muti, at least, is clearly one of the greats (not sure about Dudamel, yet), and people adore him. He gave these free concerts in Grant Park that attracted tens of thousands of people. MTT was absolutely huge in San Francisco, having just left, and Honeck is clearly revered in Pittsburgh. There are more examples. A promising new situation is Dausgaard in Seattle; the city has clearly embraced him.

The thing is, the old names usually mentioned lived through WWII, and that gives their stories a dimension of immediate interest that is missing from living names. But I think plenty of living names will be long remembered and revered. 

On the other hand, part of me thinks conductors get way too much credit and adoration anyway, and it would be much better for music if they weren't lionized as giants and heroes.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Knorf said:


> If you travel around LA or Chicago you wouldn't miss noticing that pictures of Dudamel and Muti are everywhere. Muti, at least, is clearly one of the greats (not sure about Dudamel, yet), and people adore him. He gave these free concerts in Grant Park that attracted tens of thousands of people. MTT was absolutely huge in San Francisco, having just left, and Honeck is clearly revered in Pittsburgh. There are more examples. A promising new situation is Dausgaard in Seattle; the city has clearly embraced him.
> 
> The thing is, the old names usually mentioned lived through WWII, and that gives their stories a dimension of immediate interest that is missing from living names. But I think plenty of living names will be long remembered and revered.
> 
> On the other hand, part of me thinks conductors get way too much credit and adoration anyway, and it would be much better for music if they weren't lionized as giants and heroes.


Hmmm, interesting that you mention those conductors being a big deal in their cities. MN Orchestra director Osmo Vanska is certainly a bigger-name conductor in the grand scheme of things, but I don't get the same vibe with him around where I live. But of course, the name of the orchestra was badly tarnished several years back where there was an entire season lockout (due to insufficient funding, as I gather) and Vanska actually resigned before being somehow lured back.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Nelsons is well-regarded in Boston....I've heard some very good concerts with him on the podium.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://www.talkclassical.com/34088-karajan.html?highlight=Karajan

https://www.talkclassical.com/38458-please-help-me-enjoy.html?highlight=Karajan
Two related topics


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Karajan was my intro into classical music. While I have become more knowledgeable of other conductors since I started listening to classical music, Karajan still has a soft spot in my heart .

I don't like Karajan's recordings just because they are Karajan - I honestly like his interpretation but I also acknowledge that people have very different tastes. This glossy, huge and somewhat lush and smooth sound is certainly not to everyone's liking but I have become partial to it. I'm also a huge fan of opera and he seemed to possess an unusually good ability to put together stellar casts.


----------



## Oakey (Nov 19, 2017)

Karajan got me interested in classical music (never seen him though, I’m 46). Love many of his recordings. The beethoven 60s cycle is my favourite.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> Funny that the ones who adore Karajan and defend him until the end of times with armed totalitarian forces, are now one by one downplaying their admiration. But of course I also read that anyone with a different opinion is just envious of Karajan's success. So: case closed:lol:


Yeah case closed as well on anyone who said that Irving Berlin's songs were never any good as they appeared in too many hit movies, or the Beatles were a duff band because they sold too many recordings! Or that Usain Bolt's success as a sprinter was purely down to faulty timekeeping not talent! :lol:


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I am personally a huge fan of Herbie. I never have, nor would ever consider apologizing for my admiration of the man's musical abilities. It is not to say he didn't have his weaknesses. I find his Bach to be awful and a bit (sometimes quite a bit) lacking on early Classical era. But from late classical (someone mentioned not being a fan of his Mozart, but I find some of Mozart's later Symphonies conducted by HvK to be quite good) going forward, I find the majority of his conducting to be quite good to outstanding. Yes, he was a showman, yes he had an ego (as if this should negate accomplishments by anyone), but that does not detract from the spirit he found and conveyed in the music he conducted. He found the depth, nuance, majesty, longing, and profundity in much of the music he conducted. He had a gift of conveying the very essence of what the piece was about through his baton.

There is so much more to love about what he contributed to music than to hate or detract, IMO. He was a "great" conductor in every sense of the word.

V


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

annaw said:


> Karajan was my intro into classical music. While I have become more knowledgeable of other conductors since I started listening to classical music, Karajan still has a soft spot in my heart .


Yeah, similar here. Otherwise I'm ducking outta this thread before the stereotypical comments kick in.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Merl said:


> Yeah, similar here. Otherwise I'm ducking outta this thread before the stereotypical comments kick in.


Did you miss the particularly knobbish one at the top of the page? :lol:

For any who really love Classical music flame wars, there's a recent thread, "What's Wrong with Karajan." The same people who slam fans of Karajan with extraordinarily insulting or condescending language then petulantly present themselves as victims when they are called out. It's fun, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing. I personally do not.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

This one should be good.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Eclectic Al said:


> Honegger 3. Enough said.


Yes. A phenomenal performance. I would say unmatched but I really owe a fair chance to the competition first.

Re: OP, yes, I would consider myself a Karajan fan. I find myself often enjoying his interpretations, though there are but a few instances in which Karajan's is my favorite performance of a given work: the aforementioned Honegger 3, Sibelius 4, maybe Mahler 9, Brahms Ein Deutsches Requiem (maybe-I acknowledge the Klemperer/Philharmonia as superior but find myself returning to the Karajan/Berlin w/ Janowitz and Waechter more frequently), maybe Strauss Tod und Verklärung, and that's about it. I like his Beethoven but none of his recordings are really my favorites. But I do really appreciate what he brings to the table.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

One of my top choices for Bruckner's 8th and 9th. His Wagner is also top. Enough said.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Karajan for the forcefulness I sometimes hear in the recordings. I have the "Symphonies Edition" box set.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Knorf said:


> Did you miss the particularly knobbish one at the top of the page? :lol:
> 
> For any who really love Classical music flame wars, there's a recent thread, "What's Wrong with Karajan." The same people who slam fans of Karajan with extraordinarily insulting or condescending language then petulantly present themselves as victims when they are called out. It's fun, I suppose, if you like that sort of thing. I personally do not.


I, for one, have never once slammed fans of Karajan.

You, on the Furtwängler thread however....


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Karajan was a great conductor. As I understand it, K and Leonard Bernstein remained the two most commercially successfull conductors of their times and even after they left us, K in 1989 and B less than a year later in 1990. This may lead us to judge them both more harshly, sort of the "the bigger they are the harder they fall". So if a lesser reknowned conductor made a fairly good recording we might say, "It's actually quite good for a not-so-well-known conductor and a second-rate orchestra."; but then K and B are held to much higher standard because of their super-stardome and the world class orchestras they led; so then we might expect more and say, "good, but not great, or worthy of the all the hype.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Coach G said:


> Karajan was a great conductor. As I understand it, K and Leonard Bernstein remained the two most commercially successfull conductors of their times and even after they left us, K in 1989 and B less than a year later in 1990. This may lead us to judge them both more harshly, sort of the "the bigger they are the harder they fall". So if a lesser reknowned conductor made a fairly good recording we might say, "It's actually quite good for a not-so-well-known conductor and a second-rate orcechestra."; but then K and B are held to much higher standard because of their super-stardome and the world class orchestras they led; so then we might expect more and say, "good, but not great, or worthy of the all the hype."


Yeah, it's like Bernstein is The Beatles, and Karajan is The Rolling Stones.


----------



## nncortes (Oct 5, 2014)

People hate Karajan because they hate how old school leadership and toughness leads to great success.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Do you mean as opposed to how being considerate and thoughtful in dealing with others, and working together can lead to even greater success?

P.S. If you really think that 'people hate Karajan' because of his toughness, you have come to the wrong place.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Merl said:


> Yeah, similar here. Otherwise I'm ducking outta this thread before the stereotypical comments kick in.


 Same here, I'm sitting this one out....I figure my mud-splattering on sacred cows can take a breather....:lol:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

haziz said:


> So has Karajan been rehabilitated? Are you too a fan of Karajan?


When I got into classical music seriously back in the '90s, I came with a prejudice toward Karajan that picked up through a couple radio programs I casually heard before that time which played all his worst recordings, trying to say he was overrated. That prejudice was reinforced through a friend I had who was a classical fan. So I avoided Karajan until I bought my first CD player, and the bargain bin had Karajan's recording of Beethoven's 7th symphony.

So in that sense, I wouldn't say so much that he has been rehabilitated as that I had a personal encounter with his music which overcame my prejudice. Sure, there have been duds - his live recording of Haydn's Creation is so bad that the three used CD stores I've tried to sell it to have rejected it. But those are few. I wouldn't call myself a "fan" to where if I see a Karajan disc I jump on it without thinking, but I really like most of his recordings and love quite a few.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> Same here, I'm sitting this one out....I figure my mud-splattering on sacred cows can take a breather....:lol:


Come over to the Furt thread. I enjoy schooling you.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Come over to the Furt thread. I enjoy schooling you.


Haha!!....I'll do the teaching...:devil:


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

nncortes said:


> People hate Karajan because they hate how old school leadership and toughness leads to great success.


The musicians certainly didn't hate the remuneration they received under Karajan. He was of course a man of his time when schoolmasters and bosses were tough too. Mind you he was no podium tyrant like Toscanini. He said that if you lost your temper with musicians during rehearsal it was a waste of time as it just made them more nervous. He was of course completely ruthless in getting what he wanted and was pretty unforgiving if he felt slighted. But then he could fly in and rehearse and conduct a youth orchestra entirely at his own expense. He also apparently took a real interest in the young people and their future careers as musicians. So there were two sides to the man


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I, for one, have never once slammed fans of Karajan.


Why do you always think I'm speaking of you?

Hint: if I am, I will mention you.



> You, on the Furtwängler thread however....


I was mildly critical of behavior, and slammed zero individuals.

ETA: it might serve you well to learn the difference between calling out shirty behavior and slamming someone. They are very different.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, it's like Bernstein is The Beatles, and Karajan is The Rolling Stones.


The Stones: great. The Beatles: Nnnnh. Which conductor is Led Zep? Top of the tree.


----------



## nncortes (Oct 5, 2014)

Becca said:


> Do you mean as opposed to how being considerate and thoughtful in dealing with others, and working together can lead to even greater success?
> 
> P.S. If you really think that 'people hate Karajan' because of his toughness, you have come to the wrong place.


I am not sure what you mean by that last bit, what seems like a jab. But no, I think that his style is certainly opposed to the attitude you start out with, though Karajan not to the extent of say Toscanini.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I wanted to listen to Beethoven's Eroica the other night and put on Gardiner's but found it somewhat rigid and metronomic - he appeared to give a better performance in the film 'Eroica'. However, I then switched to Karajan 77 and the whole thing was a revelation - I hadn't remembered it sounding so good. The drive and intensity without sounding hard driven. I finished the next night with 3rd and 4th movements from 82 which is another superb performance if you get the remastered version. Of all the versions Karajan seems to get the best balance between rhythmic drive and energy and sheer beauty of playing.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

A funny effect of the opprobrium heaped on Karajan by some posters in other threads I encountered here on Talk Classical, is that it caused me to listen a lot more to the Karajan in my collection, and to pick up a few recordings I didn't have, such as the Wagner Ring cycle, 1967-1970.

I have come away from this extended period of Karajan re-evaluation with _more_ respect for what he accomplished than ever! I mean, there were quite a few recordings I knew were excellent, but a number of others that I had avoided or just missed. I now know how good they are as well, such as the Karajan digital Beethoven cycle, and regret having avoided them.

One thing I know for sure: the claim that everything Karajan did is bland, un-characterized, always soft-edged, and the same sounding, is total crap.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

For me, ‘70’s Karajan is the greatest. Things are more crisp, full-bodied, well-handled. For example, the ‘63 Beethoven cycle seems a bit “mushier” and interpretively blander to me than the ‘77. But that could be the older sound too.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> For me, '70's Karajan is the greatest. Things are more crisp, full-bodied, well-handled. For example, the '63 Beethoven cycle seems a bit "mushier" and interpretively blander to me than the '77. But that could be the older sound too.


70's Karajan is my jam, as well. I prefer his 70's Beethoven and Tchaikovsky cycles to the 60s versions, for instance.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Agreed. I’ve always listened to Karajan...70’s and 80’s were my bread and butter as a kid. I still listen to him pretty regularly. Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, the Ring Cycle, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky, I guess that makes me a fan.


----------



## brucknerian1874 (Oct 21, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> 70's Karajan is my jam, as well. I prefer his 70's Beethoven and Tchaikovsky cycles to the 60s versions, for instance.


Interesting. I too seem to prefer 70's Karajan. Bruckner 8 from 1976 does more for me that the much vaunted VPO version from the late 80s. I prefer the 70's Brahms too and his Schumann cycle from the early 70's has been regular listening for me since I first heard it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

I will just throw this out there, and if it offends, fair enough. I don't mean it to, but I know these forums enough to know that I probably will. All I can say, is: please bear with me!

To be wondering about Karajan strikes me as wondering about Herr Schmidt, harpischord maker to Herr Bach. Which is to say, he's merely an interpreter or a workaday jack, not an original artist. I wonder about as much what Karajan does in front of the recording microphone as I do what Michel Scharnhorst, tuner of the BPO's keyboard instruments, thought or felt.

Don't get me wrong: wrangling 60+ orchestral prima donnas into a cohesive force is not something to be sniffed at. It is the mark of someone gifted in personnel management, at the very least. I also think he had an 'artist vision' of how a piece should sound, which he infused into the orchestra, and that's worth something in its own right, too. So he's not just the orchestra's tour bus manager, but something a lot more... but he's still not an original artist.

Thus I cannot conceive why I would say "Karajan is my jam" if I wouldn't similarly say "John Gerberer (lead tenor horn of the Boston Chamber Orchestra 1984-1987) is my marmalade".

I never would. I would judge a conductor by how close or far he was from a sort-of ideal of how one should conduct X or Y. Since none can do all composers equally well, and thus must be far from an ideal performance of Y or X, I cannot conceive of being into "a conductor" in that way. 

To answer the OP: I am a fan of Karajan as far as I think he achieves the ideal of what I imagine the composer might have wanted... which is astonishingly rare, given his vast recorded history. I am currently into his 1973 recording of Verdi's 'Otello", and think it very fine; I also know of no worse version of Holst's 'Planets' than his.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I will just throw this out there, and if it offends, fair enough. I don't mean it to, but I know these forums enough to know that I probably will. All I can say, is: please bear with me!
> 
> To be wondering about Karajan strikes me as wondering about Herr Schmidt, harpischord maker to Herr Bach. Which is to say, he's merely an interpreter or a workaday jack, not an original artist. I wonder about as much what Karajan does in front of the recording microphone as I do what Michel Scharnhorst, tuner of the BPO's keyboard instruments, thought or felt.
> 
> ...


Well, we're in the odd position of enjoying a musical form in which most of the "original artists" are dead. So we're all choosing between interpretations and recordings. When I say "Karajan is my jam" it is shorthand for me saying "I like Karajan's emphasis on power and sonority married to relatively brisk, even tempii" as opposed to "I like Bernstein's emphasis on pathos and sonority married to relatively slow and frequently variable tempii." Clearly, the same piece with similar personnel can sound vastly different based on the conductor (Rattle vs. Petrenko with the same BPO is a good example). So I don't see following a conductor/orchestra combo as being silly.

And yes, of course, there are composers working today, some of whom conduct and perform their works. But if I were to restrict my listening to the likes of John Adams and Philip Glass, I would listen to far less of this kind of music.

As far as the Planets go, there are two different recordings to consider, with the 60s Decca/VPO being far better than 80s DG/BPO.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Well, we're in the odd position of enjoying a musical form in which most of the "original artists" are dead. So we're all choosing between interpretations and recordings.


Absolutely valid point.



MatthewWeflen said:


> When I say "Karajan is my jam" it is shorthand for me saying "I like Karajan's emphasis on power and sonority married to relatively brisk, even tempii" as opposed to "I like Bernstein's emphasis on pathos and sonority married to relatively slow and frequently variable tempii."


Ah. See, I get that in heatbeat.



MatthewWeflen said:


> And yes, of course, there are composers working today, some of whom conduct and perform their works. But if I were to restrict my listening to the likes of John Adams and Philip Glass, I would listen to far less of this kind of music.


I think all I was trying to get at is, why would there be fans of Karajan versus why would there be fans of Mrs. Miggins, tea-lady to the Berlin Phil. They are all part of an interpretive 'machine', as it were. I get, "I like this machine versus that Vienna-based one". But I simply don't get why it all gets concentrated into "I'm for Karajan" versus "I'm a Solti guy" versus "Stuff that, Furtwängler or get out!"

I'm not saying it's everyone's approach, but I simply don't look at the conductor on the label until we get into discussions of which recording is better than another. (And then we might wonder about technology v. recording engineer v. some other technical issue, rather than conductor).

Sorry. I didn't particularly mean to intrude on a discussion amongst those for whom such considerations are paramount. But, entirely personally, I don't get it. I like Karajan for some things, hate him for others, and think him OK for yet others. I cannot conceive of why one would be a 'fan' of _him_ versus (say) John Culshaw.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I never would. I would judge a conductor by how close or far he was from a sort-of ideal of how one should conduct X or Y. Since none can do all composers equally well, and thus must be far from an ideal performance of Y or X, I cannot conceive of being into "a conductor" in that way.


Uhh, this just brought to my mind the main topic of debate in the monstrous Furtwängler thread which was active some time ago . Those who know, know....

His Planets _are_ indeed fine. Just thought about this yesterday - when I discovered classical music, I underwent a weird phase when I basically didn't listen to anything but Karajan's recordings. That was an interesting time but proves well that you can be a fan of a conductor. But it certainly got me acquainted with many composers.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I like Karajan for some things, hate him for others, and think him OK for yet others. I cannot conceive of why one would be a 'fan' of _him_ versus (say) John Culshaw.


Oh, I never listen to Karajan's Bach. I'm not so much of a fan that I can't recognize a bad fit for style. I'm a "Pinnock fan" when it comes to Baroque music.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Oh, I never listen to Karajan's Bach. I'm not so much of a fan that I can't recognize a bad fit for style. I'm a "Pinnock fan" when it comes to Baroque music.


Close enough!

(Buy some Suzuki!)


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

annaw said:


> Uhh, this just brought to my mind the main topic of debate in the monstrous Furtwängler thread which was active some time ago . Those who know, know....
> 
> His Planets _are_ indeed fine. Just thought about this yesterday - when I discovered classical music, I underwent a weird phase when I basically didn't listen to anything but Karajan's recordings. That was an interesting time but proves well that you can be a fan of a conductor. But it certainly got me acquainted with many composers.


Whose Planets are fine? Karajan or some hitherto unknown Furtwängler?!

I can only say that when I heard Karajan's Planets, I (a) laughed a lot out loud and (b) turned to my compadres and said, 'This guy doesn't know how to do English, does he?!'.

If Furtwängler has done a Planets, I'm not familiar with it. I am not hopeful, nonetheless. Germanic and Planets doesn't "go", in my book.

But each to their own, of course.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Whose Planets are fine? Karajan or some hitherto unknown Furtwängler?!
> 
> I can only say that when I heard Karajan's Planets, I (a) laughed a lot out loud and (b) turned to my compadres and said, 'This guy doesn't know how to do English, does he?!'.
> 
> ...


Lol. I'm prolly too tired for all this Englishing. I defnitely *did not* mean Furtwängler's _Planets_.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

What I like most of Karajan, is his approach in Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner. I think that at this repertoire gave his best.
What I *certainly* don't like about Karajan, are some cover arts...
To be fair though, I don't think he is the only one to blame. Deutsche Grammophon marketing team had a valuable asset to take advantage of...


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Whose Planets are fine? Karajan or some hitherto unknown Furtwängler?!
> 
> I can only say that when I heard Karajan's Planets, I (a) laughed a lot out loud and (b) turned to my compadres and said, 'This guy doesn't know how to do English, does he?!'.
> 
> ...


For my part, I find the 60s Decca HVK/VPO Planets "very fine." The 80s BPO account is mediocre (but not awful). For comparison I have Levine/CSO (quite good), Colin Davis/LSO (meh...) and Andrew Davis/BBC Philharmonic (relatively mediocre).


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Skakner said:


> What I like most of Karajan, is his approach in Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner. I think that at this repertoire gave his best.
> What I *certainly* don't like about Karajan, are some cover arts...
> To be fair though, I don't think he is the only one to blame. Deutsche Grammophon marketing team had a valuable asset to take advantage of...


I believe all of these editions were released posthumously. Karajan himself did not like to be pictured on album covers (I read this somewhere, possibly Osborne, but would need to track it down). In a different thread, I believe I calculated that less than 30% of DG covers in his lifetime featured his image.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

MatthewWeflen said:


> For my part, I find the 60s Decca HVK/VPO Planets "very fine." The 80s BPO account is mediocre (but not awful). For comparison I have Levine/CSO (quite good), Colin Davis/LSO (meh...) and Andrew Davis/BBC Philharmonic (relatively mediocre).


HvK/VPO _Planets_ is a marvellous recording! I second that.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

annaw said:


> HvK/VPO _Planets_ is a marvellous recording! I second that.


Yeesh. I will concede that it was probably his BPO I heard, given the timeline.
But regardless of orchestra, it was the ...I don't know how to say it... mind-set, mind-vision... that seemed pathetically at odds with what I know can be done (see Dutoit, Orchestre symphonique de Montréal). If it had just been bad playing, for example, I would never have said "He doesn't know how to do 'English'". It's a vision-thing, not a competence-thing, for me.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Here's the 60s VPO if you're so inclined.


----------



## Skakner (Oct 8, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> *I believe all of these editions were released posthumously*. Karajan himself did not like to be pictured on album covers (I read this somewhere, possibly Osborne, but would need to track it down). In a different thread, I believe I calculated that less than 30% of DG covers in his lifetime featured his image.


I think it's quite possible.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Most of his work is fine, he recorded some marvelous operas for DECCA.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I've always thought that what people say about Karajan says an awful lot more about them than it does about Karajan. Funny how K causes people to reveal so much about themselves.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

HenryPenfold said:


> I've always thought that what people say about Karajan says an awful lot more about them than it does about Karajan. Funny how K causes people to reveal so much about themselves.


I would say "tell us more," but for the sake of comity in the forum, that's probably not a good idea.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

When I hear a piece for the very first time and don’t know which conductor and orchestra to go for, I always tend to pick Karajan/BPO or VPO first and then make up my mind which other conductor and orchestra can sound good on that piece too, for my taste at least.
So Karajan is always my “neutral card” till I am familiar with a new piece.
Other than that Karajan/BPO is always among my top choices specially on Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky among others.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Axter said:


> So Karajan is always my "neutral card" till I am familiar with a new piece.


Picking up on this, I'm a very boring person. I tend to think that the best performance is quite likely to be found in the "neutral" area.

Some performances veer one way, and some veer another. There seems to be a tendency to imagine that an extreme element in a performance shows that there is an interpretative vision. My feeling is that a performance which is mainstream in its interpretive choices is just as much a vision, and may often represent a very satisfying vision. The mainstream is the mainstream for a reason.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> For my part, I find the 60s Decca HVK/VPO Planets "very fine." The 80s BPO account is mediocre (but not awful). For comparison I have Levine/CSO (quite good), Colin Davis/LSO (meh...) and Andrew Davis/BBC Philharmonic (relatively mediocre).


I really enjoy that VPO, HvK Planets on Decca and I think it's a fine performance. But I also rate the BPO 1980s performance too. This is one of those recordings that suffered from an emaciated, glassy sound. The Karajan Gold release makes all the difference, although I can't help thinking that one of those Japanese remasterings would do even more to put this recording right.

We ought not to be surprised that Karajan should deliver a fine performance. The music is taylor-made for him with the importance of rhythm, sonority and texture. In terms of idiom, the music never really achieves escape velocity from its German origin and only intermittently and superficially, resembles the English music of its time, including some of Holst's own - after all Holst was effectively German anyway - his dad was Adolf von Holst for Chrissakes!). Vaughan Williams is to be commended for always pronouncing Holst's surname correctly in the Germanic fashion - 'Holsht'.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

Deleted due to inadvertent duplication. I'd love to know what button I'm clicking to make that happen. Twice in about five days now! Sorry...


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> I really enjoy that VPO, HvK Planets on Decca and I think it's a fine performance. But I also rate the BPO 1980s performance too. This is one of those recordings that suffered from an emaciated, glassy sound. The Karajan Gold release makes all the difference, although I can't help thinking that one of those Japanese remasterings would do even more to put this recording right.
> 
> We ought not to be surprised that Karajan should deliver a fine performance. The music is taylor-made for him with the importance of rhythm, sonority and texture. In terms of idiom, the music never really achieves escape velocity from its German origin and only intermittently and superficially, resembles the English music of its time, including some of Holst's own - after all Holst was effectively German anyway - his dad was Adolf von Holst for Chrissakes!). Vaughan Williams is to be commended for always pronouncing Holst's surname correctly in the Germanic fashion - 'Holsht'.


Well, Gustavus Theodore von Holst was born in Cheltenham, about 44 years before he wrote The Planets. His great-grandfather Matthias had left Riga (Latvia!) for England; his great-grandfather had Scandinavian ancestors, German cousins and a Russian wife. Gustav's mother was English, though with Spanish ancestors. Her great grandmother married an Irishman and moved to Ireland. And Gustav's father was living in England long before he married his mother.

I don't really why, therefore, you think he 'was effectively German'!

And these ears, at least, certainly do not hear anything particularly Germanic about The Planets suite.

Anyway, I already have 12 versions of The Planets (including Herbert's 1981 Berlin Phil rendition), but having been prompted above, I've just gone and bought a copy of his 1961 VPO version. I'm doing mostly Bruckner today, so I'm squeezing in other pieces to break things up a bit, and that means I've not listened to the entire Planets recording at one sitting -and I'm being hyper-critical, because I don't find it a 'fine performance' and I thought it only fair to say why.

As I say, I've only got two pieces to base things on as yet: Mars and Jupiter. Overall impression of both is that they each have some very weird balance issues, where glockenspiels come out of nowhere and organs are not to be heard at all! But we can perhaps blame John Culshaw for that, not Herbert. But I will say, too, that in both pieces, there are some strange choices of tempo -and, in particular, a tendency to speed up and slow down that I don't see anywhere in the score.

Some comments penned as I listened to each:

Mars: Ponderous to begin with but now speeding up (which accelerando isn't in the score!). Trumpets: seemingly erratic in their rhythmic approach. I can't hear the organ at the end of section V. His tempo speeds up at the end of section VIII, again gets variable in Section IX -and the woodwinds sound muddy and indistinct throughout. There are some peculiar standout notes from individual instruments as he approaches the _ffff_ in Section X, too.

Jupiter: Glockenspiel very (too) prominent in Section III. Section V seems fast. The Andante maestoso ("big tune") section is fine. The Presto section at the end is the very moment he suddenly decides to take it slow and deliberate!

It's not a _bad_ performance. But it's erratic and quirky and I don't much like the two bits of it I've listened to quite carefully. Maybe Saturn or Uranus will make me think better of it... will report back if so. (I mention those two only because they are favourites of mine).

Whether any of that 'reveals more about me than Karajan', I'm not competent to judge. But it's what I _hear_, so I'm just telling it like I heard it.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

^ Hmm, you got me interested in listening to it as well. Is he using rubato excessively or just making unusual tempo choices? Sounds unusual, considering Karajan’s metronomic sense of rhythm. Will listen to it when I get home. It’s been a long time since I last heard it.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

annaw said:


> ^ Hmm, you got me interested in listening to it as well. Is he using rubato excessively or just making unusual tempo choices? Sounds unusual, considering Karajan's metronomic sense of rhythm. Will listen to it when I get home. It's been a long time since I last heard it.


Well, all I heard was a quite slow start to Mars and then it picking up speed. So that's the opposite of rubato, I think! My score has no accelerando marking, though lots of crescendo, obviously. I expect a choir to speed up when they get louder (because that's what choirs do!), but not a well-honed orchestra of the VPO's stature -so I assume they were doing what he asked for.

The tempi were very much less odd in Jupiter than Mars, but the final Presto in Jupiter seemed curiously slow and deliberate for my tastes, so again, that just seems a willful choice he's making.


----------



## Geoff48 (Aug 15, 2020)

My view on Karajan has altered over the years. Initially I thought he was the greatest conductor. That was in the fifties and early sixties when there were far less alternatives available and EMI Columbia was almost a guarantee of a good recording. Then I got caught up in the autocratic view of him believing that whilst he gave a very competent recording it was a little standardised with little individuality. And his Handel, Vivaldi and Bach was a great turn off with his large orchestra and romantic approach. I also wasn’t much impressed with his Mozart or Haydn. 
Now comparing his recordings to many of today I fully appreciate how good he really was. What I had seen as competence was actually respecting the music and the composers. Sure I still am not a fan of his Mozart or the baroque, I’m coming to terms with his Haydn but then Haydn in his London and Paris Symphonies benefits from a large orchestra. But his Tchaikovsky, Beethoven Mendelssohn and Brahms are really impressive. 
But one thing which impressed me about him is the care he gives to the lighter classical music. His Strauss family is great and hisNew Year Concert probably the best ever recorded, his Tchaikovsky, Delibes and Chopin ballet suites, his Rossini and Offenbach overtures are given as much care as the weightiest symphony. And unlike many of today’s conductors he seemed happy to record them.
So yes, I now think that Karajan is one of the greatest and he is one I go to often for a strong non idiomatic interpretation.. And I am rarely disappointed. Though even he hasn’t been able to persuade me to like Bruckner.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, Gustavus Theodore von Holst was born in Cheltenham, about 44 years before he wrote The Planets. His great-grandfather Matthias had left Riga (Latvia!) for England; his great-grandfather had Scandinavian ancestors, German cousins and a Russian wife. Gustav's mother was English, though with Spanish ancestors. Her great grandmother married an Irishman and moved to Ireland. And Gustav's father was living in England long before he married his mother.
> 
> I don't really why, therefore, you think he 'was effectively German'!


Many of his ancestors and relatives were ethnic Germans, including the ones born/residing in the Balkans, Riga/Latvia, Lithuania and some of the 'Swedes' .


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

HenryPenfold said:


> Many of his ancestors and relatives were ethnic Germans, including the ones born/residing in the Balkans, Riga/Latvia, Lithuania and some of the 'Swedes' .


I don't know much about Holst's family background or ancestors but it seems to me that they were Baltic Germans. Because Baltic countries were constantly occupied, there was a huge German population which mainly constituted of Baltic Germans. They were richer, they owned huge areas of land, had huge businesses etc. They had ethnic German roots but of course intermarried extensively with the local people as well. When we study our history, particularly the era of Old Livonia, we distinguish Baltic Germans from "German-Germans". The same families stayed in the Baltic countries until 20th century or possibly until someone else occupied us again .

So, while they were ethnic Germans, they were, even ethnically, somewhat different. They had lived in the Baltic countries often for many generations. But as I mentioned, I don't know much about Holst's ancestors. Maybe they were indeed German-Germans who just moved to Latvia for a few generations.

EDIT: Always trustworthy Wikipedia proves my theory right: "One of Holst's great-grandfathers, Matthias Holst, born in Riga, Latvia, was a Baltic German".


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> Many of his ancestors and relatives were ethnic Germans, including the ones born/residing in the Balkans, Riga/Latvia, Lithuania and some of the 'Swedes' .


And again, my question is, 'so what?'

His mother was of Irish ancestry, via Spanish forebears... but you don't call him "effectively Spanish" or "effectively Irish"!

My point was, he had an extensively _mixed_ ancestry, but his father resided in England for yonks before Gustav was born; and Gustav himself was over 40, having lived in England all that time, before writing the Planets. In no way was he "effectively German".

His greatest musical influence by the time he wrote The Planets was Vaughan Williams. I assume you're not going to claim RVW was 'effectively German'?!

In which case, the link to Germanic things is already weak from the point of view of genetics; it's feebler still by virtue of domicile (i.e., he was born and bred in England and never thought of himself otherwise); and it's non-existent by virtue of music influence (i.e., yes, like all musicians in the 1890 period, he was influenced by Wagner, but he soon left that behind and fell under the spell of the decidedly un-Germanic RVW).

In a letter to W.G. Whittaker, Holst himself said that his becoming acquainted with _Dido and Aeneas_ in 1895 was the point at which he began to search for "the (or a) musical idiom of the English language". Which was 20 years before The Planets saw the light of day.

In a thread about Karajan, I guess it's not useful to labour the point, but by virtue of all the above, I would say that The Planets should definitely sound English, not Germanic.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

annaw said:


> I don't know much about Holst's family background or ancestors but it seems to me that they were Baltic Germans. Because Baltic countries were constantly occupied, there was a huge German population which mainly constituted of Baltic Germans. They were richer, they owned huge areas of land, had huge businesses etc. They had ethnic German roots but of course intermarried extensively with the local people as well. When we study our history, particularly the era of Old Livonia, we distinguish Baltic Germans from "German-Germans". The same families stayed in the Baltic countries until 20th century or possibly until someone else occupied us again .
> 
> So, while they were ethnic Germans, they were, even ethnically, somewhat different. They had lived in the Baltic countries often for many centuries and I really hope no one is saying that it was pretty much the same as living in Germany. But as I mentioned, I don't know much about Holst's ancestors. Maybe they were indeed German-Germans who just moved to Latvia for a few generations.
> 
> EDIT: Always trustworthy Wikipedia proves my theory right: "One of Holst's great-grandfathers, Matthias Holst, born in Riga, Latvia, was a Baltic German".


Ethnic Germans were/are spread across the Balkans, Scandinavia and even Brazil and Argentina. I don't think anyone is saying that being an ethnic German is the same as living in Germany - where did that straw man come from?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> And again, my question is, 'so what?'


It means he's essentially German. It means no more than that. Don't get exercised about it!


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

HenryPenfold said:


> Ethnic Germans were/are spread across the Balkans, Scandinavia and even Brazil and Argentina. I don't think anyone is saying that being an ethnic German is the same as living in Germany - where did that straw man come from?


Baltic Germans (like Matthias Holst) formed a very distinctive population in Latvia and Estonia. They later had local citizenships and they played a very important role in local cultural, educational, and economical development. There's even a Baltic German dialect. Wagner lived in Riga for some time but he is not considered a Baltic German because of that. We don't consider every German living in Latvia or Estonia a Baltic German. They're a separate geographically determined ethnic group. Thus, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Holst had some Slavic or Baltic ancestors. I tend to agree with AB here - I doubt his ancestry was such a huge determining factor when he was composing. I doubt he was constantly aware that "I'm going to compose some English/German/Spanish/Russian/Scandinavian/Baltic/etc music."

Cultural identity seems to be much more important.

Btw, what does "English" or "German" sound even mean?


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

HenryPenfold said:


> It means he's essentially German. It means no more than that. Don't get exercised about it!


I'm not getting exercised about it, but it's simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. It's not what he was, genetically. It's not how he thought of himself. It's not what influenced him musically. I mean, it's OK if facts don't float your boat, but you can't just assert them away, even so.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Geoff48 said:


> My view on Karajan has altered over the years. Initially I thought he was the greatest conductor. That was in the fifties and early sixties when there were far less alternatives available and EMI Columbia was almost a guarantee of a good recording. Then I got caught up in the autocratic view of him believing that whilst he gave a very competent recording it was a little standardised with little individuality. And his Handel, Vivaldi and Bach was a great turn off with his large orchestra and romantic approach. I also wasn't much impressed with his Mozart or Haydn.
> Now comparing his recordings to many of today I fully appreciate how good he really was. What I had seen as competence was actually respecting the music and the composers. Sure I still am not a fan of his Mozart or the baroque, I'm coming to terms with his Haydn but then Haydn in his London and Paris Symphonies benefits from a large orchestra. But his Tchaikovsky, Beethoven Mendelssohn and Brahms are really impressive.
> *But one thing which impressed me about him is the care he gives to the lighter classical music.* His Strauss family is great and hisNew Year Concert probably the best ever recorded, his Tchaikovsky, Delibes and Chopin ballet suites, *his Rossini and Offenbach overtures are given as much care as the weightiest symphony*. And unlike many of today's conductors he seemed happy to record them.
> So yes, I now think that Karajan is one of the greatest and he is one I go to often for a strong non idiomatic interpretation.. And I am rarely disappointed. Though even he hasn't been able to persuade me to like Bruckner.


A very interesting observation, this has never occurred to me, but I think it's true.

Early on in my time with listening to classical music and collecting recordings, I enjoyed Karajan's Wagner Strauss, Bruckner, Brahms, Beethoven and the other non-German repertoire that he's received good notices for, but often preferred other conductors/performances.

I could not abide his Mozart, Haydn, Vivaldi or other early music, even though I bought many releases. My preference was firmly for Pinnock, Gardiner, Norrington, Antonini and countless other 'Hipsters'. But over the last 2/3 years I've been enjoying almost all of his output. I've come round to his Haydn and Mozart, and I even found his Bach Orchestral Suites mesmerising!

Normally, if I was asked who my favourite conductors are, I would have no hesitation in naming Sinopoli, Celibidache, Boulez and Dohnanyi. I wouldn't even think to mention Karajan. Feels like that could be changing!


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

annaw said:


> Baltic Germans (like Matthias Holst) formed a very distinctive population in Latvia and Estonia. They later had local citizenships and they played a very important role in local cultural, educational, and economical development. There's even a Baltic German dialect. Wagner lived in Riga for some time but he is not considered a Baltic German because of that. We don't consider every German living in Latvia or Estonia a Baltic German. They're a separate geographically determined ethnic group. Thus, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Holst had some Slavic or Baltic ancestors. I tend to agree with AB here - I doubt his ancestry was such a huge determining factor when he was composing. I doubt he was constantly aware that "I'm going to compose some English/German/Spanish/Russian/Scandinavian/Baltic/etc music."
> 
> Cultural identity seems to be much more important.
> 
> Btw, what does "English" or "German" sound even mean?


Excellent question! And there's no easy answer -especially if you remember that the quintessential English Vaughan Williams was taught by the Frenchman, Ravel!

It has been said of RVW, that his "style prior to working with Ravel was understandably Germanic, texturally complex,and Brahmsian." So maybe that's a clue!

At the end of it all, perhaps the absorption of folk song idiom lies at the heart of it? A return to modality might have something to do with it too, perhaps? Hence things like Fantasia on Thomas Tallis, Lark Ascending and so on.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

This is a question that just popped into my head as I was catching up on this thread, and it may be worth nothing at all, but I wonder if (due to the dramatic improvements in recording, reproduction and distribution) Karajan may have been the first conductor to understand how much his legacy would depend on recordings rather than live performances.

Edit: corrected "composer" to "conductor"


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> This is a question that just popped into my head as I was catching up on this thread, and it may be worth nothing at all, but I wonder if (due to the dramatic improvements in recording, reproduction and distribution) Karajan may have been the first composer to understand how much his legacy would depend on recordings rather than live performances.


Composer? Or Conductor? Just wondering if you're making a point about him wanting to be more 'creative' than usual!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Well, Gustavus Theodore von Holst was born in Cheltenham, about 44 years before he wrote The Planets. His great-grandfather Matthias had left Riga (Latvia!) for England; his great-grandfather had Scandinavian ancestors, German cousins and a Russian wife. Gustav's mother was English, though with Spanish ancestors. Her great grandmother married an Irishman and moved to Ireland. And Gustav's father was living in England long before he married his mother.
> 
> I don't really why, therefore, you think he 'was effectively German'!
> 
> ...


Are you listening to the 60s Decca?

The Decca Mars feels to me like it's going to fly apart at any moment, and is barely controlled chaos that crashes into devastating crescendos. It's unsettling emotionally, which I really like for the piece. By comparison, the DG is very controlled and much more metronomic (which is closer to how my other versions sound, e.g. Levine, Davis, et al.). So it's idiosyncratic, to be sure. But it also is much more memorable and impactful for me.

Now, I do not listen with a score. The only score I've ever looked up is the beginning of Also Sprach, just to see what the rhythm, on the "bum-baaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!" is supposed to be.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Are you listening to the 60s Decca?
> 
> The Decca Mars feels to me like it's going to fly apart at any moment, and is barely controlled chaos that crashes into devastating crescendos. It's unsettling emotionally, which I really like for the piece. By comparison, the DG is very controlled and much more metronomic (which is closer to how my other versions sound, e.g. Levine, Davis, et al.). So it's idiosyncratic, to be sure. But it also is much more memorable and impactful for me.
> 
> Now, I do not listen with a score. The only score I've ever looked up is the beginning of Also Sprach, just to see what the rhythm, on the "bum-baaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!" is supposed to be.


Yes. The 1962 Decca Vienna Phil. The one you recommended to me, if I was willing to give it a go, etc.

I think I know what you mean by 'controlled chaos': though to me, it sounds like Karajan just has poor sense of tempi control (at least in Mars: he's definitely settled down by Jupiter). I find his dynamics odd at times too (his ffffs are not as loud as his ffs kind of 'odd').

I wouldn't normally listen with a score for this sort of purpose, but my first listen was just so odd, I had to go check there wasn't an accelerando I had not remembered... there isn't. Unfortunately, once the score's in hand... it tends to stay there!

Since I last wrote: Saturn: good, spooky opening. There's a trumpeter breaking a note at 4:46. The bed-spread effect at the 'animato' section is incongruous (I mean, the score says 'with metal striker', but it sounds like bed springs!). The trumpeter is late and hesitant around 5.00 minutes in. The harps are good at the Section V andante. Sounds like a bum note in the cellos or double bases around 5 bars from the end. Short version: it's OK, but not spectacular. And some dodgy playing at times isn't probably Karajan's fault, but I might have expected him to re-take those bits.


----------

